The propagation of air transport delays in Europe

Thesis
by Martina Jetzki
Department of Airport and Air Transportation Research
RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY
23.12.2009

Written at:

Contact:

EUROCONTROL

martina.jetzki@rwth-aachen.de

Rue de la Fussee 96
1140 Brussels, Belgium
Supervisor from EUROCONTROL:
Philippe Enaud, Deputy Head of Unit (PRU)
Yves De Wandeler, FTA-CODA
Supervisor from RWTH Aachen:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Johannes Reichmuth
Dipl.-Wi.-Ing. Sebastian Kellner

Acknowledgement

Firstly, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Reichmuth who gave me the opportunity
and Sebastian Kellner who encouraged me in the first place, to write this thesis at
EUROCONTROL, Brussels.
I am very grateful for the amazing assistance and lasting mentoring I experienced
from EUROCONTROL staff. I thank Dr. David Marsh and Philippe Enaud for
counselling me with ideas and advice. In addition, Id like to express my
gratefulness to Yves De Wandeler who is not only a genuine expert in delay
analysis, but who also kindly assisted me with helpful advice in all matters during
this whole period; Magda Gregorova my personal SAS assistant and Holger
Hegendrfer for his encouragement and support especially in stressful times.
It was a real pleasure working in this multicultural, multilingual and above all
inspiring environment.

Abstract

This empirical study is concerned with the propagation of delays in European air
traffic. The so called reactionary delays account for about 40 percent of all
departure delays in Europe but, due to data limitations, most delay studies have
traditionally focused on the analysis of primary delays at the departure airports.
Using data collected by the Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA), this study
developed aircraft sequences in order to analyse the propagation of delays and
to better understand the amplifying or mitigating factors.
Hub-and-spoke carriers tend to have a smaller level of propagation than point-topoint and low-cost carriers because they have a higher ability to absorb delay
during the ground phases. On the other hand, low-cost operations absorb notably
more delay in the block phase than the other operations.
Overall, the sequences of reactionary delays starting in the morning have a
higher impact and magnitude than the ones starting in the afternoon as they
propagate on average on more subsequent flight legs.
However, the level of propagation in the afternoon appears to be higher which
suggests that airline efforts to mitigate delay propagation are higher in the
morning than in the afternoon. Moreover, the magnitude of sequences of
reactionary delays after short delays is higher, because reactionary delays
increase throughout the sequence due to further primary delays in block and
ground phase.
Looking at major European hubs, it was observed that they affect daily 30 to 50
other airports, but in terms of reactionary delays they mostly affect their own
operations. Aircraft returning to the hub after one flight leg arrive with up to 50
percent of the original departure delay when leaving the hub airport.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

2
3

6
7

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1
1.2
OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................5
1.3
STUDY SCOPE ................................................................................................................6
1.3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE ...................................................................................................6
1.3.2 TEMPORAL SCOPE ..........................................................................................................6
1.4
ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................8
DATA VALIDATION & PROCESSING ..............................................................................13
3.1
DATA SOURCES ...........................................................................................................13
3.1.1 CENTRAL FLOW MANAGEMENT UNIT (CFMU).................................................................13
3.1.2 CENTRAL ROUTE CHARGES OFFICE (CRCO) .................................................................13
3.1.3 CENTRAL OFFICE FOR DELAY ANALYSIS (CODA)............................................................13
3.2
DATA VALIDATION & LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................20
3.2.1 MISSING OR INCOMPLETE DATA ......................................................................................20
3.2.2 USE OF DIFFERENT DELAY CODES ..................................................................................21
3.2.3 DIFFERENT CODING POLICIES.........................................................................................22
3.2.4 ERRORS IN DATASETS ...................................................................................................23
3.2.5 MISSING FLIGHTS ..........................................................................................................24
3.3
INPUT IN ANALYSIS........................................................................................................24
3.4
DATA PROCESSING ......................................................................................................25
3.4.1 BUILDING SEQUENCES WITH AIRLINE ROTATIONS .............................................................25
3.4.2 GROUPING BY AIRLINE BUSINESS MODEL.........................................................................27
3.4.3 CONVERTING UNIVERSAL TIME COORDINATED (UTC) .....................................................29
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................30
4.1
FACTORS DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF REACTIONARY DELAY ...........................................30
4.2
KPIS OF REACTIONARY DELAYS.....................................................................................30
4.2.1 SENSITIVITY TO PRIMARY DELAYS IN AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS .......................................31
4.2.2 AIRLINE SCHEDULING MATTERS ......................................................................................31
4.3
SEQUENCE OF FLIGHTS WITH REACTIONARY DELAYS .......................................................35
4.3.1 CREATING SEQUENCES OF SUBSEQUENT FLIGHT LEGS WITH REACTIONARY DELAYS ............35
4.3.2 ROOT DELAY ................................................................................................................36
4.3.3 DEPTH OF THE SEQUENCE .............................................................................................36
4.3.4 MAGNITUDE .................................................................................................................36
ANALYSIS OF REACTIONARY DELAYS.........................................................................38
5.1
DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY DELAYS BY DURATION ...........................................................39
5.2
SENSITIVITY OF AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS TO REACTIONARY DELAY ...............................39
5.2.1 METHODS OF CALCULATING REACTIONARY DELAY ...........................................................39
5.2.2 SHARE OF REACTIONARY DELAY BY TYPE OF OPERATION ..................................................41
5.3
ABILITY TO ABSORB REACTIONARY DELAYS IN THE BLOCK-TO-BLOCK PHASE ....................49
5.4
ABILITY TO ABSORB REACTIONARY DELAYS IN THE TURN-AROUND PHASE .........................54
5.4.1 DELAY DIFFERENCE INDICATOR-GROUND AND GROUND TIME OVERSHOOT .......................54
5.4.2 TURNAROUND DELAY INDICATOR AND TURN-AROUND TIME OVERSHOOT ..........................55
5.4.3 SCHEDULE PADDING-GROUND .......................................................................................57
5.4.4 ABSORBED INBOUND DELAY ...........................................................................................59
5.5
SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS OF REACTIONARY DELAYS ..........................................................64
5.5.1 KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING SEQUENCES OF REACTIONARY DELAYS ..................................64
5.5.2 SEQUENCES IN EUROPE ................................................................................................64
5.5.3 SEQUENCES IN DETAIL ..................................................................................................67
5.6
MAGNITUDE AND DEPTH OF SEQUENCES OF REACTIONARY DELAY ....................................78
5.7
REACTIONARY DELAYS AT EUROPEAN AIRPORTS ............................................................81
5.7.1 REACTIONARY TO PRIMARY DELAY RATIO AT SELECTED AIRPORTS.....................................81
5.7.2 MEAN DAILY IMPACT OF AN AIRPORT ...............................................................................82
5.7.3 AIRPORTS AFFECTING THEMSELVES ...............................................................................86
5.7.4 EXAMPLE OF BAD WEATHER IN FRANKFURT .....................................................................87
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................90
OUTLOOK .........................................................................................................................94

8
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................96
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................98
ANNEX 1 : IATA DELAY CODES ...........................................................................................100
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF CODA DATA...........................................................................103
ANNEX 3: CONVERSION OF UTC TO LOCAL TIME ............................................................104
ANNEX 4: LOW-COST CARRIER DEFINITION......................................................................105
ANNEX 5: AIRCRAFT TYPES AND MEDIAN SEAT CAPACITY ...........................................106
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................107

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schedule adherence on intra-European flights.................................................. 1

Figure 2: Geographical scope - ECAC States (2009) ....................................................... 6
Figure 3: IFR coverage July 2009 ................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Turnaround with different types of delay.......................................................... 15
Figure 5: Distribution of departure delays ....................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Types of reactionary delay............................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Split-up of reactionary delays........................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Reactionary delays by airline business model and time .................................. 19
Figure 9: Cross-validation of data ................................................................................... 21
Figure 10: Building aircraft rotations ............................................................................... 26
Figure 11: Types of airline operations............................................................................. 27
Figure 12: Factors determining the level of reactionary delays....................................... 30
Figure 13: Aircraft rotations............................................................................................. 31
Figure 14: Block time related indicators .......................................................................... 31
Figure 15: Ground time related indicators....................................................................... 32
Figure 16: Sequence of reactionary delay ...................................................................... 35
Figure 17: Primary delay distribution............................................................................... 39
Figure 18: Reported versus calculated reactionary delays ............................................. 41
Figure 19: Share of reactionary delay by type of operation (Summer 2008) .................. 42
Figure 20: Seasonal evolution of reactionary delay ratio ................................................ 43
Figure 21: Reactionary/primary delay and flight movements within the week ................ 44
Figure 22: Reactionary/primary delay and average delay of delayed departures within the
week......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 23: Hourly distribution of reactionary delay ratio (local time) ............................... 46
Figure 24: reactionary/ primary in relation to departure delay by hour............................ 47
Figure 25: Average delay and reactionary delay per delayed departure ........................ 48
Figure 26: DDI-F and BTO by airline business model..................................................... 49
Figure 27: Impact of DDI-F on percentage of delayed arrivals ....................................... 52
Figure 28: Inbound delays in relation to mean reactionary delay.................................... 53
Figure 29: DDI-G and GTO by airline business model.................................................... 54
Figure 30: TTO and TDI by airline business model......................................................... 55
Figure 31: The relation between schedule padding-Ground and mean reactionary delay
per delayed departure.............................................................................................. 58
Figure 32: Inbound, absorbed and reactionary delays.................................................... 59
Figure 33: Sequential analysis of the propagation of reactionary delay.......................... 64
Figure 34: Distribution of sequences affected by reactionary delay................................ 65
Figure 35: Impact of sequences affected by reactionary delay....................................... 66

Figure 36: Hub-and-spoke sequences with different root delays .................................... 68

Figure 37: Depths of sequences in hub-and-spoke operations....................................... 70
Figure 38: Low-cost sequences with different root delays .............................................. 71
Figure 39: Different depths of sequences in low-cost operations ................................... 72
Figure 40: Point-to-point sequences with different root delays ....................................... 73
Figure 41: Depth of sequences in point-to-point operations ........................................... 74
Figure 42: The first reaction after the root delay DDI-F................................................ 75
Figure 43: Sequences in hub-and-spoke operations ...................................................... 76
Figure 44: Sequences with root delays between 16-60 minutes during the morning and
afternoon (Hub-and-spoke operations) .................................................................... 77
Figure 45: Sequences with root delays between 121-180 minutes during the morning and
afternoon (Hub-and-spoke operations) .................................................................... 78
Figure 46: Mean magnitude and depths of root delays................................................... 79
Figure 47: Reactionary delays at European airports....................................................... 81
Figure 48: Number of daily affected airports by airport ................................................... 83
Figure 49: Calculating the original propagated delay minutes ........................................ 83
Figure 50: Daily impact of an airport by reactionary delay minutes ................................ 84
Figure 51: Daily impact of an airport within the week...................................................... 85
Figure 52: Returning departure delay minutes................................................................ 86
Figure 53: Impact of major airports on 8.12.2008 ........................................................... 87
Figure 54: Sequences from EDDF on 8.12.2008 ............................................................ 88

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Standard IATA delays codes............................................................................. 16

Table 2: IATA Codes for the classification of reactionary delay...................................... 17
Table 3: Analysis data input ............................................................................................ 25
Table 4: Median seat capacity and ground times............................................................ 26

INTRODUCTION

This is an empirical study dealing with the propagation of delays in European air
traffic.
1.1

Background

The generally accepted key performance indicator (KPI) for operational air
transport performance is punctuality which can be defined as the proportion of
flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to the published schedule.
Other definitions exist, looking at punctuality within 60 minutes of departure/arrival.
35%

Figure 1 shows the schedule adherence

Intra-European flights
30%

on intra-European flights between 2000

2009.

After

substantial

improvement between 2000 and 2003,

the share of flight delayed by more than

25%

% of flights

and

20%
15%
10%
5%
Source: AEA*/ CODA

2008 and 2009 show an improvement

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

until 2007.

2001*

0%
2000*

15 minutes deteriorated continuously

DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)
ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)

but this needs to be seen in context with

the significant traffic decrease as a result

Figure 1: Schedule adherence on

intra-European flights

of the global economic crisis.

(2000-2009)
Due to the high degree of public exposure, it is in an airlines best interest to
operate flights within the commonly accepted 15 minute window. However, there
are many factors that contribute to the punctuality of a flight on which aircraft
operators have no or only limited influence. In reality, punctuality is the endproduct of complex interactions between airlines, airport operators, airport slot
coordinator and air navigation service providers (ANSPs) from the planning and
scheduling phase up to the day of operation.
From a scheduling point of view, which is often months before the day of
operation, the predictability of operation has a major impact to which extent the
use of available resources (aircraft, crew, etc.) can be maximised. The lower the

predictability of operations in the scheduling phase, the more slack time is required
to maintain a satisfactory level of punctuality and hence the higher the strategic
costs to airspace users.
The level of punctuality is closely linked to the level of departure delays. The two
are related to another but the difference needs to be clear. Punctuality allows the
aircraft a 30-minute window around the scheduled time to be on-time or not ontime. Delays, on the other hand, can be positive or negative. Delays are defined as
the time lapse which occurs when a planned event does not happen at the
planned time (Guest 2007: 7). A delay measures the minutes the aircraft is later
or earlier than scheduled. It is the difference between the scheduled and the actual
off-block time for departures, respectively on-block time for arrivals.
On-time performance and delay minutes are key indicators for all stakeholders like
airlines or airports because they are linked to direct costs due to the loss of
productivity as well as to indirect costs due to the invisible loss of time and loyalty
of passengers (Wu 2003b: 418). Mayer (Mayer 2003: 16) states that although
airlines typically blame adverse factors like weather or airport congestion for
occurring delays, there are systematic and predictable patterns to airlines' on-time
performance, meaning that certain delays are foreseeable and handling those
could be implemented in the schedule from the start.
The departure delay of a turnaround aircraft is influenced by the length of
scheduled turnaround time, the arrival punctuality [...] as well as the operational
efficiency of aircraft ground services (Wu 2003a: 329). In conclusion the
Performance Review Unit (PRU) (Performance Review Commission 2008: 32)
stresses that late arrivals originate mainly from late departures. That leads to the
propagation of delays throughout the aircraft rotation and the network of an airline
one delay causing another delay. It is important to note that, for an airline, the
'value' of delay is not just its effect on an individual airframe but its effect on the
operating schedule (Beatty 1998: 2).
Taking a closer look at the different delay causes, the so called 'reactionary'
delays were identified as the largest delay cause (Guest 2007: 29). These
'reactionary', 'knock-on' or also called 'propagated delays' are delays without an

own specific origin or cause. It is the duration of a delay which is transferred from
a previous flight of the same (rotational) or a different (non-rotational) aircraft.
Since generally reactionary delays result from primary delays, they have to be
treated differently and are not to be seen as an individual delay 'cause'.
Even though reactionary delays have a great impact on air traffic performance, the
research effort to better understand and handle them in practice was limited in the
past. Typically primary delays are analysed and taken as main factor for better ontime performance. While critically important due to its contribution to the cost of
delay, it is the primary cause which must be identified if effective action is to be
taken (Guest 2007: 18). However, cost of delay hits airlines twice: both
contingency planning of a schedule (the strategic cost of delay), and then again,
when dealing with the actual delays on the day of operations (the tactical cost of
delay) (Cook 2007: 97). Ahmad Beygi et al. (Ahmad Beygi 2008: 231) confirm the
relevance of reactionary delays: because of the interconnected use of multiple
constrained resources, [...] the propagation of a delay in a flight network has
greater impact than the root delay itself. In CODAs annual DIGEST 2008 (CODA
2009: 34) the impact of reactionary delays becomes apparent, where the share of
reactionary out of all delays account for about 40 percent of total generated delay
minutes.
Overall, the propagation throughout the network is such an inter-related complex
issue, that analysing it, finding patterns, or even trying to predict consequences is
linked to many uncertain variables. Next to qualified information about airlines'
scheduling, fleet and policies, as well as airport congestion and operations,
exogenous factors, for example weather occurrences or in some cases politics,
need to be considered.
In order to minimize the propagation of a delay, airlines can choose a longer
layover on the ground to buffer against the risk of late incoming aircraft or
schedule longer flight time to absorb potential delays on the taxiways (Mayer
2003: 1). Extra time on the ground is cheaper, but accurate anticipation of
[additional time during the block phase] helps with better [] maintenance [and
crew] planning (Cook 2007: 118). In addition to the padding of the schedule,

airlines may have a spare aircraft, flight crew, or ground personnel available.
While these measures decrease the cost of delays when they occur, they also
increase costs of day-to-day operations (Gillen 2000: 3). It is always important to
bear in mind that there is a trade-off between any kind of buffer time and daily
aircraft productivity: the higher the aircraft utility, the higher the revenue. Therefore
a waiting aircraft with unused buffer time includes always sunk costs, because it
can only gain money while flying. Just five minutes of unused buffer, at-gate, for a
B767-300ER, would amount to well over 50.000 over a period of one year, on
just one leg per day" (Cook 2007: 118). 50.000 a year equals to 27,40 a minute.
In Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay
the Performance Review Commission (PRC) published also different unit costs.
Passenger delay costs incurred by airlines in consideration of both hard and
soft costs are estimated as 0,30 per average passenger, per average delay
minute, per average delayed flight (University of Westminster 2004: p.51). Based
on their calculations, a delay over 15 minutes has a network average value of 72
per minute (University of Westminster 2004: 100). These costs were adjusted by
inflation to 77 in 2006 (Performance Review Commission 2008: 42). It considers
direct reactionary delay costs, but not the strategic costs through added buffer
minutes. Theoretically strategic buffer minutes should be added to the airlines'
schedule up to the point at which the cost of doing this equals the expected cost of
the tactical delays they are designed to absorb (Guest 2007: 22). The break-even
point was estimated to be a buffer time of the average tactical delay [when] more
than 22% of flights are expected to be delayed by more than 15 minutes
(University of Westminster 2004: 102).
Another and more drastic way of avoiding delays is cancelling flights. This enables
airlines to return to scheduled times and good on-time performance. Nevertheless,
analyses on costs of delays in correlation to network performance in the US
indicated that operational strategies that emphasize maintaining flights even when
there are high delays are more efficient than cancelling flights (Gillen 2000: 13).
For all this, a certain amount of delay is well accepted by the airlines. Following, it
is even more convenient to find out more about the consequences of an occurring
delay, (in a sense of additional costs through rotational and non-rotational knockon delays).

1.2

Objective

The objective of the study is to better understand the processes and mechanisms
of delay propagation in Europe, and to identify factors which amplify or mitigate the
delay propagation.
If an aircraft arrives late at its destination, the delayed inbound flight may not only
be delayed on its next flight leg but it may also affect other flights within the airline
network. This analysis is based on actual flight-by-flight data (and therefore on a
detailed microscopic level) provided by airlines. Through the tracking of aircraft
registrations throughout their rotations, and considerations of different scheduling
strategies of various airlines, the actual propagation of delays is observed and
push factors found.
After a high level analysis of reactionary delays in Europe, more detailed analysis
is carried out to better address the following three issues:

firstly, the delay propagation is analysed from a single airline point of view
by looking at possible differences in airline business models and scheduling
strategies;

secondly, the delay propagation is analysed by looking at sequences with

different number of aircraft rotations and the amplification or mitigation of
delay along the sequence (i.e. how many legs are affected? What it the
impact of a delay in the morning, etc.); and,

finally, the delay propagation is analysed from an airport point of view in

order to evaluate the impact of airport operations on the European air
transport network and vice versa.

The findings can help to improve airline and airport planning in order to achieve a
higher level of resilience towards predictable and unpredictable primary delays.
Furthermore, the findings aim at providing more detailed insights on delay
propagation, which can be useful for macroscopic analyses and simulations.

1.3

Study Scope

For data consistency reasons, the following geographical and temporal scope was
applied.
1.3.1 Geographical scope
The geographical scope of the study is the European Civil Aviation Conference
(EACA) area, as shown in Figure 2. The ECAC area currently consists of 44
Member States comprising almost all European States.

Source: http://www.ecac-ceac.org/index.php?content=lstsmember\&idMenu=1\&idSMenu=10

Figure 2: Geographical scope - ECAC States (2009)

1.3.2 Temporal scope

Due to improvements in the quality of the data collection used for this study, the
temporal scope of the study is limited to two years. It spans from the beginning of
the 2007/08 IATA winter season (28. October 2007) until the end of the 2009 IATA
summer season (25. October 2009).
It should be noted that the analyses are to some extent affected by the significant
reduction in traffic following the economic crisis which started in the second half of
2008.

1.4

Organisation of the study

The study is organised as follows:

The literature review in Chapter 2 provides an overview on previous

research carried out in this area;

Data Input and validation is described in Chapter 3;

Chapter 4 describes the key indicators and the general approach used for
the evaluation of the delay propagation;

The analyses and the findings are presented in Chapter 5;

Chapter 6 draws conclusions from the results in the previous chapters: and,

Chapter 7 provides an outlook on future challenges regarding delay

propagation in Europe.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Since detailed flight data are commonly available in the US but not in Europe, past
research on reactionary delay considered mainly US air traffic.
For the lack of data it has been very difficult to analyse network effects on a
macroscopic view or detailed aircraft rotation mechanisms on a microscopic view
for European air traffic. Following various papers of previous research are shortly
introduced.
Already in 1998 Beatty, Hsu (both American Airlines), Berry and Rome (both Oak
Ridge National Laboratory) analysed flight propagation through an airline schedule
with the concept of a 'Delay Multiplier'. The delay multiplier is the relation between
the sum of the initial and down line delays, and the initial delay itself. Using
American Airlines data, including crew and aircraft connectivity, they wanted to
develop a 'generic' total value of both the initial delay and its continuing
consequences on the airline schedule (Beatty 1998: 2) Within their concept of the
delay multiplier they considered rotational as well as non-rotational reactionary
delays through crew and passenger connectivity, as well as gate-space limitations.
They found that a linear increase in delay multiplier with increased departure
delay [...] worked well (1998: 5) and that even a small reduction of long root
delays can have a significant affect on total delay in an airline schedule (1998:
7). They concluded, that their results are most probably not valid for different
scheduling strategies, assuming that the delay multiplier would be much smaller
for a large international operator with long turn times and little crew and aircraft
branching [...] while a high frequency, short turn time operator might be much
larger (1998: 8). Finally they analysed the problem of calculating costs due to
cancelling flights and reassigning resources, and suggested to use the cost
calculated by delay multiplier as a conservative surrogate (1998: 8).
Wu published in October 2003 a theoretical study on punctuality performance of
aircraft rotations in a network of airports, analysing different scheduling strategies
in a mathematical model. He observed that the propagation of knock-on delays in
aircraft rotations is found to be significant when short-connection-time policy is
used by an airline at its hub airport (Wu 2003b: 417). When scheduling short

turnaround times at spoke-airports, he declared long turnaround times at the hub

airport as necessary to absorb punctuality uncertainties from spoke airports
(2003b: 431f.). Also, Wu analysed rotations where all ground phases had the
same turnaround time but discarded this idea because it could reduce aircraft
efficiency.
In 2003 Mayer and Sinai published in Why do airlines systematically schedule
flights to arrive late? their results, analyzing nearly 67 million flights over 12 years
of different US airlines. They found out that airlines do not adjust their schedules
to incorporate predictable movements in push back delays (Mayer 2003: 17).
While average scheduled travel time is almost exactly equal to the median time
between pushing back from the gate on departure to pulling up to the arrival gate,
airlines' schedules does not account for the fact that the typical flight leaves almost
ten minutes late (2003: Abstract). Airlines schedule less travel time, if it has a
greater variation. Ground times are not planned longer, when inbounds are
probable to be late. As an example for airlines not considering predictable delays,
they pointed out that the same average scheduled flight time for January and
October leads to a much worse on-time performance in January than in October.
Looking at competition on different routes, they found out that a flight that leaves
its own hub is between 2.9 and 5.4 percentage points less likely to be on time than
a non-hub flight on the same route (2003: 14). In general competition appears to
be correlated with worse on-time performance (2003: 14). Finally, they concluded
that the results imply that airlines believe that the potential revenue benefits from
reducing passenger waiting time are relatively small and do not justify the
additional labour (and capital) costs associated with lengthening schedules to take
into account predictable push-back delays (2003: 27).
In 2003 Eurocontrol Experimental Centre in Bretigny did a study on delay
propagation, looking at Air France data and a number of French airports. They
created a model, which aims at explaining the progression of delay through
stations (Eurocontrol Experimental Center 2003: 16). The itinerary of an aircraft is
followed, local parameters to each airport and a set of possible delays due other
causes than local ones are implemented. Also the effects of ATFM slots and
exceptional events are taken into account by a rule which states that a slot or

exceptional event alter the predicted delay (2003: 16). Firstly they found out that
the actual flight duration exceeds the planned or announced one, up to 6 minutes
(2003: 9). Additionally, they discovered that short delays between three to fourteen
minutes result mainly from the propagation of a former delay and/or the local
conditions (Load, scheduled stop time) and that propagation and local effects
alone cannot reach values up to 15 minutes if they do not result from an event or
an ATFM slot (2003: 25). For long delays they saw the morning delays absorbed
during long turnaround times by the middle of the day whereas the propagation
and the local effects sustain the level of event or ATFM delays in the evening until
the night stop (2003: 26). Finally, they stated that a flight experiencing a
disruptive event or an ATFM regulation at a station is very likely to undergo a long
delay due to the propagated and local contributors alone, [...] especially [...] during
the latest stations of a daily itinerary (2003: 28).
In 2008 Ahmad Beygi, Cohn, Guan and Belobaba published the Analysis of the
potential for delay propagation in passenger airline network. They investigated the
relationship between schedules and delay propagation with flight data by two
major US airlines, one with mainly hub-and-spoke and one with point-to-point
operations. They examined a delay without looking at other flights at the same
time. Then they created a tree-structure for the following flights of the same aircraft
as well as for the ones which are affected through that single flight. Impacts
through cabin crew and passengers as well as recovery options are excluded.
Throughout their analysis they looked at the sum of propagated delay minutes, the
ratio of the propagated to the root delay, the number of affected flights, number of
flights of the longest propagation sequence, the ratio between the longest
sequence and total number of affected legs, the number of flights where crew
changed aircraft and the ratio of the split up of crew changes to the total number of
affected flights.
They disproved the assumption that a higher number of affected flights correspond
to a higher splitting rate of resources (crews). They also found out that extreme
cases are quite rare (Ahmad Beygi 2008: 224). The maximum count of affected
flights was 7 and 10, for the two operations. About 40 percent of delays of 180
minutes did not propagate at all and about 90 percent had an impact on three or

10

less flights. They observed that delays typically originate at a spoke airport and are
absorbed either at the following or at the second stop at the hub airport. In addition
they stated that the ratio of propagated to root delay decreases as the root delay
occurs later into the day. Also delays benefit earlier in the day more substantially
from increased slack (2008: 232f). The optimal location for the slack is in the
middle of the chain. This is the trade-off point, where the expected delay is
minimized, trading off the lengthy of the propagation and the probability of the root
delay (2008: 236).
In October 2008 Akira Kondo from the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA,
presented the Tail Number Tracking Methodology at INFORM in Washington DC.
As an indicator for propagation performance, a multiplier was calculated by
dividing the arrival delay by the previous arrival delay. Thus, they put the spotlight
specifically at arrival delays. The multiplier is calculated for each leg with a
previous arrival, departure and arrival delay greater than zero. By the end of the
propagation sequence, an overall multiplier as a geometric mean of the single
multiplier evaluates the sequence. Additionally a 'propagation accelerator' is
calculated as the ratio of the propagated delay, which is the minimum of the
previous arrival, departure and arrival delay, and the previous propagated delay.
Finally they presented the ten most affected airports for propagated delay from a
certain airport and to that airport.
Also in 2009, Tony Diana from the FAA published a case study for selected U.S.
airports. He observed that there is no clear evidence that market-concentrated
airports are different from less concentrated ones in terms of delay propagation
(Diana 2009: 280).
According to information from Professor Amadeo R. Odoni and Nikolas Pyrgiotis
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), they are developing the
Approximate Network Delays model, AND-concept. It is a macroscopic model
which computes the propagation of delays within a network of airports. The
computation is based on scheduled itineraries of individual aircraft and a queuing
system for each airport. With this tool they want to predict network effects with
different scenarios. So far, they observed that the expected delay relative to

11

schedule increase, and schedule reliability decrease later in the day. Also they
discovered that aircraft flying for the first time to a congested airport late in the day
suffer much less delay. Finally, they assumed that airports affect themselves
significantly within a Hub and Spoke system, returning with the outgoing return.
The EUROCONTROL Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA) receive
operational flight data from airlines, enriched with additional delay information from
the Central Flow Management Unit, CFMU, covering around 60 percent of all IFR
flights in Europe (see next chapter). Based on these data CODA publish annually
and monthly DIGEST-Reports, a detailed analysis of the actual delay situation in
Europe. However, when looking at changes in traffic flow, year-to-year trends and
delay causes, they concentrate mainly on primary delay causes. In here they
analyse airports, city pairs, and an overall overview. Finally CODA present the
Percentage of all causes Delay by IATA Category (Figure 5), which shows that
the share of reactionary delays sum up for 40 to 45 percent of all delays of all
generated delay minutes.

In cooperation with CODA the flight-by-flight data is now used to analyse

reactionary delays within this study.

12

DATA VALIDATION & PROCESSING

This chapter describes the data sources used for the analysis. It furthermore
describes difficulties and shortcomings related to the data processing and
validation in order to develop a sound basis for the analysis of delay propagation
in Europe in the following chapter of this report.
3.1

Data Sources

Generally, there are many different data sources for the analysis of operational air
transport performance. For consistency reasons, the data in this study were drawn
from a combination of centralised airline reporting and operational Air Traffic
Management systems.
3.1.1 Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU)
In Europe, data are derived from the Enhanced Tactical Flow Management
System (ETFMS) of the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) located in
Brussels, Belgium.
The system stores data repositories with detailed data on individual flight plans
and tracks sample points from actual flight trajectories. It enables CFMU to track
Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delays by airport and en route reference
location.
3.1.2 Central Route Charges Office (CRCO)
The second, centralised data collection comes from the Central Route Charges
Office (CRCO). As the name states, they calculate the fee for the air space use of
a state, invoice it to the airlines and reimburse the states, respectively the ANSPs.
For this purpose, the CRCO uses an efficient cost-recovery system that funds air
navigation facilities and services and supports Air Traffic Management
developments (CRCO homepage).
3.1.3 Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA)
CODA aims to provide policy makers and managers of the ECAC Air Transport
System with timely, consistent and comprehensive information on the air traffic

13

delay situation in Europe, and to make these available to anyone with an interest
in delay performance (CODA homepage).
In Europe, CODA collects data from more than hundred airlines each month. The
data collection started in 2002 and the reporting is voluntary. Currently, CODA
covers 60 percent of all IFR flights in the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) area which includes 44 countries. Figure 3 illustrates the coverage of
CODA data by ECAC Member State for July 2009. For instance, the data
submitted by airlines in July 2009 covers 69 percent of all German IFR-departures.

Source: CODA

Figure 3: IFR coverage July 2009

The data reported include what is referred to as OOOI1-times, the aircraft
registration (also called tail number), schedule information and causes of delay,
according to the IATA delay codes. A more detailed description of the CODA data
collection is provided in Annex II.
The most important parameter for this study is the unique aircraft registration,
reported for each flight, which enables to link the various rotations of an individual
aircraft throughout the operational day. Together with the delay information
1

Out of the gate, Off the runway, On the runway, and Into the gate.

14

submitted by the airlines it is possible to evaluate the propagation of delay and the
underlying causes. Airlines may use up to delay 5 codes per flight to specify the
reason of a departure delay. This valuable information is neither gathered by
CFMU nor by CRCO. Usually, when working with calculated propagated delay
minutes, there is always one open question: which part of the departure delay is
newly added and which is propagated from a previous flight leg? The regular flight
data give no information about which part of the inbound delay was absorbed and
how much propagated to the next flight.
With the reported delay codes the actual reactionary delay and the new primary
delay can be separated from each other. They demonstrate how much of the
inbound delay has been absorbed, thus, how long the delay would have been if
there was no primary delay. Figure 4 illustrates this significant advantage of CODA
data in more detail:

the aircraft at the top of Figure 4 operates according to the scheduled turnaround time with no additional delays.

the aircraft in the middle of Figure 4 is able to make up time from an

inbound delay on the previous flight leg but suffers another primary delay
not related to the previous flight leg.
the aircraft at the bottom of Figure 4 is unable to make up time from the
inbound delay and therefore departs with a reactionary delay from the

00:10

Turnaround

Turnaround

00:20

00:30

00:40

new
primary
delay

taxi out

Inbound
delay
10 min.

absorbed
inbound
delay

reactionary
delay

taxi out

Inbound
delay
10 min

00:00

taxi out

taxi in
taxi in

Turnaround

taxi in

with primary
delay

Turn-around..

as scheduled

previous flight leg.

with
reactionary
delay

00:50

01:00

Turn-around time

Figure 4: Turnaround with different types of delay

15

Without the delay codes reported by the airlines, it would not be possible to
differentiate between the new primary delay (middle bar of Figure 4) and the
reactionary delay (bottom bar of Figure 4).
3.1.3.1 IATA Delay Coding
In order to foster the harmonised reporting of delay among its member airlines,
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has published a standard
coding system for the classification of delays (see Annex I).
As shown in Table 1, the IATA delay codes can be broadly divided into ten parts,
according to the area of accountability:
Table 1: Standard IATA delays codes
IATA Code

Definition

0-9
11-18
21-29
31-39
41-48
51-58
61-69
71-77
81-89

Others & airline internal codes

Passenger and baggage handling
Cargo and mail
Aircraft and ramp handling
Technical and aircraft equipment
Damage to aircraft and automated equipment failure
Flight operations and crewing
Weather
Air
traffic
flow
management/
Airport
and
Governmental Authorities
Reactionary delay
Miscellaneous

91-96
97-99

Figure 5 shows the percentage distribution of all causes of departure delay by

IATA category in 2008.

16

It is interesting to note that some

40-45 percent of all departure
delays in Europe are coded as
reactionary delay but only six
of the 80 available codes are
dedicated

to

the

better

description of reactionary delay.

The limited granularity of data
available and the complexities
involved are the main reasons
as to why most studies focus
traditionally on the analysis of
primary delay.
Figure 5: Distribution of departure delays
However in view of the scope of the problem and its importance from a network
point of view there is clearly a need for further work to better understand the
propagation of delays and to improve data collections in this direction.
A more detailed evaluation of the IATA delay codes available for the classification
of reactionary delays further illustrates the issue. Table 2 shows the IATA codes
available for the classification of reactionary delay.
Table 2: IATA Codes for the classification of reactionary delay
IATA Code

Definition

91

Awaiting load from another flight

92

Through check-in error, waiting for passenger and baggage

from another flight

93

Late arrival of the aircraft on the previous flight

94

Awaiting cabin crew from another flight

95

Flight deck or entire crew from another flight (including

deadheading crew members)

96

Operations control: rerouting, diversion, consolidation, aircraft

change for reasons other than technical
Source: IATA Airport Handling Manual

17

IATA delay code 93 is also called rotational reactionary delay, because it relates
to reactionary delays on successive flight legs of the same aircraft (Figure 6).

Aircraft 1
1

Code 93

Aircraft 2
Codes 91, 92
94, 95, 96

Awaiting crew,
connecting passenger, etc.

Primary delay

Reactionary delay (93)

Reactionary delay (91, 92, 94, 95, 96)

Figure 6: Types of reactionary delay

However, a primary delay on one flight can also cause reactionary delays for other
aircraft within the fleet as shown on the bottom of Figure 6 (i.e non-rotational
reactionary delays). IATA delay codes 91 and 92 apply to cases where an aircraft
has to wait for passengers, baggage or load from another delayed aircraft. Crews
who are to change aircraft after a flight or are flown to an airport to start duty
(deadheading) can cause reactionary delay due to IATA delay code 94 and 95,
when the other aircraft has to wait for them. Finally, IATA delay code 96
represents all kind of reactionary delay due to operations control.
"Airlines normally attempt to keep the crew on the same aircraft on multiple flight
legs" (Bazargan, p.84), which avoids reactionary delays due to crew changes.
However, depending on airline policy and in order to achieve higher levels of crew
efficiency, especially hub-and-spoke carriers schedule crew changes across
different aircraft which in turn can result in reactionary delays if a flight ready to
depart has to wait for crew from another flight. Likewise, the need to wait for
connecting passengers or cargo may result in reactionary delays.

18

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the reported delay

minutes in the six different IATA reactionary delay

94-95

96 91

92

categories between winter 2007 and summer 2009.

Codes 94 and 95 are grouped together in this analysis
because they are used by most airlines for the same

93

causes. Airlines also tend to group codes 91 and 92

together, but since one is for load and the other for
passenger, they were kept separately in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Split-up of
reactionary delays

By far the main share of reactionary delay is due to rotational reactionary delay
which accounts for 89 percent of all reactionary delay reported during the analysed
period.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of the reactionary delay categories by airline
business model (low-cost, hub-and-spoke, and point-to-point) and by time of the
day in summer 2008. Morning lasts from 6:00h till 13:59h, Afternoon from 14:00h
till 21:59h and Night from 22:00h till 5:59h.

Figure 8: Reactionary delays by airline business model and time

19

Irrespective of the airline business model, the rotational delay accounts by far for
the highest share of reactionary delay.
Hub-and-spoke operations show with 15 percent the largest share of nonrotational reactionary delay which is normal in view of the type of operations.
As can be expected, low-cost and pointto-point operations only show a small
share of non-rotational reactionary delay as they often operate independent
services without the need to wait for connecting passengers or load. The nonrotational delay reported by those carrier types is mostly related to crew (code
94/95) or operations control (code 96)
Irrespective of the type of operations, the main share of reactionary delay (around
60 percent) is reported in the afternoon, followed by the morning (25-30 percent)
and the smallest share during night.
For all three business models codes 91, 92 and 94-95 are higher in the afternoon
than during morning or night time. This indicates that airline focus in the afternoon
is more on managing flight connections while in the morning the focus is more on
schedule adherence.
3.2

Data validation & limitations

The most important prerequisite of the delay propagation study is the data
processing and validation in order to develop a sound basis for the analysis in the
next chapters of the report.
A considerable amount of time was necessary to prepare the vast amount of data
available from the various data sources (see section 3.1) and to resolve
inconsistencies in order to develop a data base for the analysis of delay
propagation.
This section describes the encountered difficulties in the processing of the data
and the applied solutions.
3.2.1 Missing or incomplete data
One of the most influencing limitations for the analysis of delay propagation is
missing or incomplete data. For the development of rotation sequences of an

20

aircraft the exclusion of only one flight due to missing or incomplete data means
that the entire rotation sequence is incomplete.
For the analysis of delay propagation, the aircraft registration is one of the key
parameters needed in order to create the rotation sequences. If key parameters
are missing, the data submitted by airlines is cross-validated with data from the
CFMU or CRCO in order to complete the missing data (see Figure 9). In cases
where the aircraft registration could not be retrieved from one of the three sources
the respective data record was rejected from the analysis.

CFMU
CODA

Data sample
for reactionary
delay analysis

CRCO

Figure 9: Cross-validation of data

Also there are reported records which do not contain all the required information.
One example, as described above, is the missing aircraft registration. Another
example is the especially for this analysis useful information about the callsign of
the flight, which caused a non-rotational reactionary delay. Unfortunately this
information is almost never provided by the companies and not available for
analysis functions. This disables to follow the delay when spreading to other
aircraft.
In addition, there are flights which have a reported OUT- (and OFF-) time, but no
actual arrival time, respectively only the ON-time. In those cases, the missing INtime is calculated with the ON-time plus the reported standard taxi-in time. If the
ON-time is also missing, the IN-time equals the scheduled arrival time plus the
departure and taxi-out delay, assuming that there was the block time passed as
scheduled.
3.2.2 Use of different delay codes
As already described in 3.1.3.1, IATA published a standard coding system for the
classification of delays (see Annex I). However, the use of the IATA codes is not

21

mandatory and therefore some airlines have developed their own or slightly
modified delay coding schemes in order to meet their operational needs.
For comparability reasons, CODA has developed algorithms to recode tailored
coding schemes into the standardised IATA coding scheme.
Only flight data using the standardised IATA delay coding or for which the data
could be recoded is included in the analysis in the next chapters of the report.
3.2.3 Different coding policies
Note that the reported delays are based on a persons decision2 and therefore are
to some extent subject to interpretation and airline preferences. A different person
could report the same delay differently. However, most airlines have a specific rule
for exactly that issue and knowing how these strategies work, helps dealing with
the reported codes.
Generally airlines aim at reporting the delays as they occur, but what if there are
two reasons at the same time (i.e. ATFM delay AND boarding delay), or it is simply
not known what really caused the delayed minutes? Airlines split the delays
according to their respective duration, but some only report the most penalising
or longest delay, others split the minutes in half and report both. Reporting the
cause of the longest delay reduces the visibility of shorter primary delays for the
respective airline (i.e. 5 min. delay due to boarding will be hidden behind a 20
minute ATFM delay). Reporting both delays would, on the other hand, reduce the
visible impact of the longer delay.
One major carrier in Europe reports not the longest, but always the last delay
cause. For instance when an aircraft with 30 minutes of reactionary delay gets an
additional small delay all previous delay minutes are reassigned to the new
primary delay cause. If this practice is not known, one would assume that the
aircraft recovered from all previous delay minutes, and that the new delay had a
bigger impact than it really had.

The delay codes are often given by the handling agend and are then sent to the
Operational Control Centre (OCC) of the airline with the aircraft movement message
(MVT).

22

Another reporting practice particularly relevant for the analysis of reactionary delay
was observed for another airline. The airline exclusively uses primary delays even
if they are carried over as reactionary delays on the next flight leg. The advantage
of this technique is that the actual root cause remains visible on the subsequent
flight. For the analysis it is however impossible to identify whether it was a
reactionary delay or another primary delay.
Another difficulty in reporting reactionary delays is to separate them from primary
delays on the ground. In practice, it is not always obvious how many minutes were
transferred from a late arrival and how many minutes were added newly. In other
words, it needs to be decided if there was extra buffer time considered in ground
phase, and whether it was used only for the inbound delay or also for parts of an
eventually new delay. When it is not clear, many airlines just split the delay in half
and report both, a reactionary and a new delay.
In order to avoid any bias from different coding practices, airlines applying a
coding practice which could spoil the analysis were excluded from the analysis.
The results of the analysis should nevertheless be viewed with a note of caution
due to possible differences in the interpretation of IATA delay codes.
3.2.4 Errors in datasets
During aircraft registration tracking sometimes different aircraft types showed up
for one aircraft registration. As aircraft registrations are unique for every aircraft,
each aircraft can only have one aircraft type. In order to resolve this issue, the
actual aircraft type was determined by analysing the frequency of occurrence in
the data during the analysed period. The aircraft type for the few records with a
different aircraft type was then aligned with the most frequent type for this aircraft
registration.
The aircraft type is used in the analysis to group each aircraft type according to its
median seat capacity3. A more detailed table with aircraft types and their median
seat capacity can be found in Annex V.

The EUROCONTROL Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting the

Management of EATM (PRISME) provides for every aircraft type the ICAO aircraft type
with its corresponding median seat capacity.

23

When calculating the block times of flights another error occurred quite frequently.
For about 170 datasets the block time exceeded 1440 minutes, which is equal to
one day. Apparently in those cases the date of arrival was simply put falsely one
day after the departure date. The data was cleaned by manually correcting the
date.
Another problem was linked to arrival times. The calculation of automatically
computed fields, like the arrival delay could for example not handle flights with an
ON or IN-time at midnight. Therefore arrival, landing, and taxi-in delays were
recalculated in those cases.
3.2.5 Missing flights
For the development of aircraft sequences the exclusion of only one flight means
that the entire rotation is incomplete. For instance, some smaller non European
airlines only report the flights bound for Europe.
Two regional airlines only send information about delayed flights but not about the
flights which were on-time.
As it is impossible to build aircraft sequences when flights are missing, those
airlines which only report a part of their flights were excluded from the analysis.

3.3

Input in analysis

Overall, 21 European traditional scheduled and 15 European low-cost carriers

were included in the analysis. Among the 21 traditional scheduled airlines are
bigger airlines with around 600.000 flights per year as well as smaller ones with
only 20.000 flights per year. For the low cost carriers, the size differs from 10.000
to 300.000 flights per annum.
Table 3 shows the data input for all four seasons included in the analysis. On
average, 96 percent of the flights could be identified and linked by their aircraft
registration in order to build rotation sequences.

24

Table 3: Analysis data input

IATA winter season 2007-08 to end of IATA summer season 2009
(28.10.2007 - 25.10.2009)
Business
model

Traditional
scheduled
Low-cost

Cleaned data of
flights of
selected
airlines

Flights in
complete
rotations

.. with more than one leg and in

ECAC (excluded rotations of
cargo, military and business flight
types)

6.527.962

95,6 %

73,8 %

2.116.704

96,0 %

82,4 %

The last column in Table 3 represents the sample used for the analysis in the next
chapters. It only includes sequences with more than one rotation and only panEuropean flights.
Overall, about 50 percent of all IFR departures in the ECAC area are included in
the sample used for the analysis of delay propagation.
3.4

Data Processing

In view of the vast amount of data that needs to be processed for the analysis, the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Enterprise Guide was used for the entire
analysis. After 'cleaning' the airline data, as described in the previous section, this
section describes how rotation sequences of aircraft are build for the further
analysis in Chapter 5.
3.4.1 Building sequences with airline rotations
Rotational sequences are built by linking individual flights through their unique
aircraft registration over time. This also serves as the final control to ensure that
the sequence is complete.
In order to create these sequences, all flights are grouped according to their
unique aircraft registration and sorted by their actual reported off block times
(Figure 10).
In a next step, the individual flight legs for each unique aircraft registration are
connected by date and time and by their ICAO airport designator. For example,
the arrival airport on one flight leg has to match with the departure airport on the

25

subsequent flight leg and so on. As the sample relates to pan-European flights,
most sequences start in the early morning and end at night.
1 sequence
with

3 rotations

Single flight
perspective

Sequential
perspective

Figure 10: Building aircraft rotations

A sequence continues until there is either an error in the reported flight data or
until the observed scheduled ground time (SGT)4 exceeds a pre-defined limit.
Some airlines try to ensure schedule adherence by placing a long period of time,
usually called a 'fire-break', somewhere in the aircraft rotation path (Wu 2003b:
428). These 'fire-breaks' can be an overnight stay or a longer than usual ground
phase during the day, usually during off peak times.
The SGT limits applied in this study are shown in Table 4. A sequence continues as
long as the SGT does not exceed what is generally considered a sufficient turnaround time. In order to account for the different aircraft sizes, the SGT limits are
divided into four groups according to the median seat capacity.
Table 4: Median seat capacity and ground times
median seat
capacity
< 80
81 - 180
181 - 280
> 280

Rotation ends when

SGT is ..
> 90 min
> 120 min
> 150 min
> 180 min

The SGT limits for each of the four groups are based on median seat capacity,
average observed SGT and expert judgement from EUROCONTROL staff working
in this area.

The SGT is the difference between the scheduled arrival time (STA) of the previous flight
and the scheduled departure time (STD) of the subsequent flight.

26

There is only one exception to the SGT limits outlined in Table 4. When a flight
exceeded the SGT limit but reported a reactionary delay on the next flight leg, the
flight was kept in the sample.
3.4.2 Grouping by airline business model
The following additional attributes and groupings were applied in this study.
As airline business models are expected to react differently to the propagation of
delay, the flights were categorised according to three different business models:

Hub and spoke operations;

Low cost operations; and,

Point-to-point operations.

As different definitions term low-cost carrier, EUROCONTROL STATFOR have

developed criteria which were applied for the identification of this market segment
in this study (see Annex IV).
As illustrated in Figure 11, the traditional scheduled flights are further divided into
two categories: flights within a hub-and-spoke or a point-to-point system.

Airport
A:
START

Airport
A

Airport
B

HUB:
START
Airport
C

Airport
C

Airport
B

Hub-and-spoke System

BASE

Point-to-point system

Figure 11: Types of airline operations

Hub-and-spoke operations enable a higher number of possible connections with
fewer aircraft than point-to-point services. During a specific time of the day a
number of aircraft arrive within a similar time band at the hub in order to allow

27

passengers to connect to other flights. This approach increases connectivity for

passenger and load and thus efficiency as the usually smaller feeder flights
enable to increase load factors on long haul flights departing from the hub.
Disadvantages arise through congestion [and] delays [at hub airports], increasing
passenger travel time and, for the airline, more personnel and higher operational
costs. (Radnoti 2002: 310). These advantages and disadvantages indicate
already that there are principal differences in the strategy behind these two
operational systems. Therefore they are separated in this study.
In the hub-and-spoke system the aircraft return to its hub after almost every leg. In
order to identify hub-and-spoke operations, the number of times an aircraft starts
and lands at its hub is counted and divided by the number of its total departures
and arrivals. If the aircraft starts and lands at least 40 percent of all times at its
hub, the rotation is marked as 'hub-system'.
Example: The left aircraft from Figure 11 stops at each airport once, starting and
ending the rotation at the hub. That counts for six departures and arrivals at other
airports and six at its hub. Therefore the percentage of departures and arrivals at
the hub equals 50 percent (= 6/(6+6)*100) and it is classified as hub operation.
For this study only the major hub of an airline was considered as a hub. With the
exception of three airlines having two hubs, all airlines were appointed to one hub.
Pointto-point operations on the other hand usually serve high density routes and
are not part of a network which enables a multitude of connections. The aircraft
does not return every other leg to a certain airport and has mostly no connection
conditions.
The right side of Figure 11 shows a rotation with point-to-point operations. The
aircraft starts for example at airport A and goes around, stopping at airport B, C
and then returns to its base. Consequently there are six starts and landings at
other airports and just two at the base. For the purpose of this study sequences
with less than 40 percent were defined as point-to-point operations.

28

3.4.3 Converting Universal Time Coordinated (UTC)

As the local time of the root delay might be of interest, off-block and on-block times
which are generally expressed in UTC were converted into Greenwich Mean Time
(GMT), Central European Time (CET) and Eastern European Time (EET). Also the
Daylight Saving Time (DST), or so called 'summer time', needs to be considered
during summer season. As season changes at the same time as the DST is
changed, the conversion into local times can by done by season. More details on
the conversion of UTC to local times can be found in Annex III.

29

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

After the description of data processing and validation issues in the previous
chapter, this chapter presents the approach of how propagation of delays is
analysed.
4.1

Factors determining the level of reactionary delay

Two main elements determine the level of reactionary delay:

1. the profile of the primary delays (time of the day, length, etc.); and,
2. the ability built into the air transport network to absorb primary delay
(buffers in scheduled block times or turn-around times, reserve aircraft,
margins in declared airport capacity, etc.).
Planning of operations
Ability to absorb
primary delays
- Gate-to-gate
- Turn-around
Level of
reactionary
delay

Primary
delays
(length, time of
day, root cause,
etc.)
Actual operations

Figure 12: Factors determining the level of reactionary delays

4.2

KPIs of reactionary delays

This section provides an overview of the key performance indicators (KPI) which
are used to measure and describe the propagation of delays. The sensitivity to
primary delays, scheduling tactics, sequences of reactionary delays, as well as
reactionary delays from an airport point of view are analysed. The analysis
differentiated between the three different airline business models described in the
previous chapter.

30

4.2.1 Sensitivity to primary delays in airline business models

The sensitivity of airline business models to primary delay can be measured using
the reactionary/primary delay ratio.

Ratio

reactionar y delay
primary delay

The higher the ratio, the more sensitive is the operational system to primary delays
and the more reactionary delay minutes are generated for each minute of primary
delay. This draws a high-level picture of the impact and the importance of
reactionary delays in European air traffic and reveals differences between the
business models.
4.2.2 Airline scheduling matters
Scheduled turn-around and block-to-block times play an important role in
absorbing and reducing primary and subsequent reactionary delays.

Block time

Block time
Turn around

Block time
Turn around

Figure 13: Aircraft rotations

4.2.2.1 Block time related indicator(s)
The block time is defined as the difference between the off-block (OUT) and the
on-block (IN) time. Related indicators compare the actual to the scheduled time
irrespective of the flights adherence to published schedule (see Figure 14).

Actual IN

Actual OUT

Actual block-to-block time

Scheduled block-to-block time
STA

STD

Figure 14: Block time related indicators

31

In this study, two complementary indicators were used to get a first understanding
of performance differences in the block-to-block phase.
I. Delay Difference Indicator Flight (DDI-F)
The DDI-F provides an order of magnitude of the deviation between the scheduled
block time and the actual flown block times. It is expressed as mean deviation
compared to the scheduled block time.

DDI - F Arrival delay - departure delay

Actual block time - scheduled block time

[min]

II. Block Time Overshoot (BTO)

The BTO is the share of flights exceeding the scheduled block time during a
defined time period. It replenishes the DDI-F, so that both of them provide an
overall picture of the block-to-block phase performance.
BTO

Number of flights with a longer than scheduled block time

100
Number of all flights

[%]

4.2.2.2 Turn-around time related indicator(s)

Turn-around time related indicators compare the actual to the scheduled turnaround time. For example, an aircraft arrives (IN-time) on-time at its scheduled
arrival time (STA), but stays longer than scheduled on the ground. As a
consequence, the resulting departure delay equals the excess of the scheduled
turn-around time.

Actual turn-around time

Scheduled turn-around time

Figure 15: Ground time related indicators

32

Similar to the DDI-F and the BTO, two complementary indicators are used to get a
first understanding of whether an airline is able to stick to its scheduled ground
times.
I. Delay Difference Indicator Ground (DDI-G)
The DDI-G provides an order of magnitude of the deviation between the scheduled
turn-around time and the actual observed turn-around times. It is expressed as
mean deviation compared to the scheduled turn-around time.
DDI - G departure delay - inbound delay

DDI G Actual ground time - scheduled ground time

II. Ground time overshoot (GTO)

The GTO is the share of flights exceeding the scheduled ground time during a
defined time period.
GTO

Number of flights with a longer than scheduled ground time

100
Number of all flights

[%]

It is important to note that the DDI-G can include additional time in both directions
of the schedules ground time: early arrivals are considered just like added delay
during turn-around.
In order to take a deeper look at the turn-around process itself, two other related
and again complementary indicator are found to be more useful in terms of delay
analysis during the ground time.
III. Turn-around Delay Indicator (TDI)
The TDI equals the DDI-G but neutralizes early arrivals. The actual arrival time is
set to the scheduled arrival in case of an early arrival.

33

TDI Departure delay - inbound delay

IF

Inbound delay 0
Inbound delay 0

THEN

TDI Actual ground time - scheduled ground time

IF

Actual INprevious flight STAprevious flight

Actual Ground Time Actuak OUT - STAprevious flight

THEN

Therefore this indicator shows the general tendency of an airline to absorb or add
delay during all ground phases.
IV. Turn-around Time Overshoot (TTO)
Similar to the GTO, the TTO indicates the percentage of flights, which still outrun
the scheduled ground time when early arrivals are neutralized.
TTO

Number oft aircraft adding delay during turnaround time

100
Number of all flights

The TDI and TTO demonstrate whether and how much delay is added in general
during the ground time.
However, for the analysis of the propagation of delays, the reaction following an
inbound delay needs to be looked at individually. There the schedule paddingGround is introduced as another IF-indicator of the DDI-G.
V. Schedule padding-Ground (sched.pad-G)
The schedule padding-Ground measures the deviation of the actual to the
scheduled ground time, IF the aircraft arrived late. It seems similar to the TDI, but
reveals slightly different information.

Schedule padding - Ground departure delay - inbound delay

inbound delay 0
When analysing calculated propagated delays this indicator presents ground time
performance and finally determines the propagated delay minutes. The reported
data from the airlines enable a more detailed evaluation of the ground phase as
the actually absorbed inbound delay can be determined.

34

VI. Absorbed inbound delay (used buffer time)

The last indicator for the evaluation of the performance in the ground-phase is the
absorbed inbound delay. It is an essential indicator because none of the previous
indicators enables a distinction between reactionary and primary delays. Due to
the reported IATA delay codes, it is now possible to determine how long the
resulting reactionary delay was and how much new primary delay was added
during the ground phase. In other words, how much of the inbound delay could be
absorbed during the turn-around phase.

Absorbed inbound delay reported reactionary departure delay - inbound delay

inbound delay 0

4.3

Sequence of flights with reactionary delays

After looking at the sensitivity to primary delays and various performance

indicators addressing the performance in the block and ground phase, the actual
propagation of the delay is analysed in more detail.
4.3.1 Creating sequences of subsequent flight legs with reactionary delays
For the analysis of delay propagation, only those sequences on which reactionary
delay was reported were used. A sequence of flights with reactionary delay starts
with a primary delay and continues until the end of the rotational sequence of the
aircraft or until the reactionary delay is absorbed (equal to zero).
Figure 16 visualizes a sequence of reactionary delays. The sequence starts with a
(primary) departure delay and because the aircraft cannot absorb any delay in the
first block-to-block phase it arrives with the same inbound delay.
Primary delay

Absorbed delay

Inbound delay

Reactionary delay

Figure 16: Sequence of reactionary delay

35

During the first ground phase, the aircraft absorbs part of the inbound delay, but
suffers from a new primary delay. Therefore it departs with the remainder of the
inbound delay as reactionary delay and the new primary delay.
In the second block-to-block phase, the aircraft recovers a little and arrives with
less inbound delay than it had on departure. In the second ground phase, the
aircraft is able to absorb a big part of the inbound delay and departs finally with
little reactionary delay, consisting of primary delays from the two previous flight
legs.
4.3.2 Root delay
An important role in a sequence of flights with reactionary delays is the 'root delay'.
The root delay is the first primary delay which caused a reactionary delay in a
sequence. The root delay can be due to:

primary departure delay (airline, airport, ATFM related etc.),;

non-rotational delay due to awaiting crew, passengers or load; or,

'inbound' delay (mostly due to holdings in the terminal area).

The root delays are grouped according to their duration into the following groups:

1 to 15 minutes

16 to 60 minutes

61 to 120 minutes

121 to 180 minutes

Over 180 minutes.

4.3.3 Depth of the sequence

The depth of the reactionary delay propagation is another interesting parameter to
be evaluated. It is expressed as the number of subsequent flight legs until the
original root delay is absorbed.
4.3.4 Magnitude
In other publications (see Chapter 2) concerning delay propagation, different
indicator similar to the delay multiplier can be found. There are multipliers, which
show the growth rate of two sequential delays, others which calculate what is

36

referred to as magnitude in this study: the relation of all reactionary delays

following one root delay to the root delay itself.

Magnitude

all reactionary delays

Root delay

An important issue to point for the interpretation of the multiplier or the magnitude
is its sensitivity to the length of the root delay and to the length of the sequence of
reactionary delays.
For example, if a 10 minute delay results in a 10 minute reactionary delay, the
multiplier equals 1 (10/10=1). If a flight has a root delay of 60 which causes a
reactionary delay of also 10 minutes, the multiplier is 0,17 (10/60=0,17).
The same amount of reactionary delay results in a different multiplier depending
on the length of the root delay. Hence, for the comparison of delay multipliers it is
necessary to take the length of the root delay into account.
Similarly, the multiplier also depends on the number of flight legs affected by
reactionary delay.

37

ANALYSIS OF REACTIONARY DELAYS

This chapter provides an analysis of the reactionary delay in Europe. The chapter
consists of the following complementary parts:

section 5.1 shows the distribution of primary delays by duration;

section 5.2 analyses the sensitivity of the three airline business models to
primary delays. The ratio between the reported reactionary and primary
delay is taken to get a first understanding of fundamental differences
between business models and over time (see 4.2.1);

section 5.3 looks at differences in the scheduling of the block phase among
the three airline business models and the respective impact on the
propagation of reactionary delay (see 4.2.2.1);

section 5.4 evaluates differences in the scheduling of the turn-around phase

(ground phase) and the respective impact on reactionary delay (see
4.2.2.2);

section 5.5 provides the analysis of the sequences of reactionary delays

(see 4.3.1);

section 5.6 presents the impact of the sequences in form of a delay

multiplier the magnitude of root delays (see 4.3.4); and,

the last section 5.7 provides an evaluation of reactionary delay from an

airport point of view.

38

5.1

Distribution of primary delays by duration

Primary delays are the main drivers

Summer 2008

of reactionary delay and their length

1-15 min.
121-180 min

plays a key role in the propagation

Figure 17 shows the distribution of

primary delays reported along the
analyzed sequences (not only the
root delay). It illustrates that short

50
40
30
20
10
0

primary delays up to 15 minutes

by nr of flights

account for the highest share of

primary

delay

in

terms

of

61-120 min

60
% of observations

of reactionary delays.

16-60 min
>180 min

by primary delay
minutes

Figure 17: Primary delay distribution

occurrence.
However in terms of minutes generated, primary delays from 16 to 60 minutes
account for the highest share.
5.2

Sensitivity of airline business models to reactionary delay

As described in 4.2.1 the ratio between reactionary and primary delays is used as
key performance indicator for the sensitivity of the three airline business models to
reactionary delays.
The ratio describes the impact of primary delays on successive flights in form of
reactionary delays. If the ratio is one, every minute of primary delay generates an
additional minute of reactionary delay. If the ratio is higher than one, the total
amount of reactionary delay generated is higher than the amount of initial primary
delays.
5.2.1 Methods of calculating reactionary delay
As outlined in the literature review in Chapter 2 due to the lack of available data most studies on reactionary delay are based on models which calculate the delay
propagation based on available airline schedules. The advantage of this
methodology is that the assumptions made for the calculation are not influenced

39

by possible reporting inconsistencies and can therefore easily be used to compare

airlines to another.
However, any model is only as good as the underlying assumptions and actual
observations can differ considerably from the estimated results of the calculated
propagation.
The CODA data collection enables a comparison between both methods.
1) Reactionary delay (reported): The reported reactionary delay is the sum of
all the reactionary delay codes (91-96) as reported by airlines to CODA.
2) Propagated delay (calculated): This method is different because when
calculating the propagated delay, it is not known if a delayed departure after
a delayed arrival is due to the inbound delay, or if the delay was absorbed
and a new primary delay caused the departure delay. The calculated
propagated delay is calculated as the minimum between the inbound and
departure delay, depending whether the delay was absorbed during the
ground phase or not.
propagated delay MIN{inbound delay, departure delay}
inbound, departure delay 0

Figure 18 compares the results of the two different methodologies. The solid lines
indicate the mean ratio of the (reported) reactionary delays of the different airline
business models, the dotted line the ratio of the (calculated) propagated delays.
With some exceptions in specific months, the correlation between the (calculated)
propagated delay and the (reported) reactionary delay is generally good for all
three airline business types. It is interesting to note that the reported delay (solid
lines) is most of the time below the calculated delay (dotted lines). This is most
likely due to the inability of the model to account for a certain level of flexibility to
speed up turn-around times when required.
The analysis in the following sections only relates to reported reactionary delay.

40

Figure 18: Reported versus calculated reactionary delays

5.2.2 Share of reactionary delay by type of operation

In Figure 19 the average delay of delayed departure (ADDD) and the share of
reactionary delay are illustrated by type of operation in summer 2008. The bottom
part of Figure 19 shows the percentage of delayed departures for each of the three
different airline business models. Note that for the purpose of this report, delays
are counted from the first minute on.
Of the three analysed airline business models, hub-and-spoke operations show
with 17 minutes the lowest ADDD and also the lowest share of reactionary delay
(7 minutes).
Low-cost operations have the highest ADDD (26 minutes) and also the highest
share of reactionary delay (13 minutes).
On average, every minute of primary delay generated more than one minute of
reactionary delay for this type of business model.

41

The

ADDD

for

point-to-point

primary delay of delayed departures

operations is slightly higher than for

higher

share

of

reactionary delay (46 percent). Figure

19 illustrates that almost 60 percent of
hub-and-spoke
operations

were

and
delayed

low-cost
during

summer 2008.

delayed
departures [%]

comparatively

mean delay per

delayed departure [min]

hub-and-spoke operations, but with a

30

The high level analysis in Figure 19

reactionary delay of delayed departures

25
20
15
10
5

51 %
46 %

39 %

80

Hub-and-spoke

Low-cost

59 %

59 %

Point-to-point

60
40
20

44 %

provides a first high level estimate of Figure 19: Share of reactionary delay
the importance of reactionary delay for by type of operation (Summer 2008)
each of the three airline business
models.

The analysis in the next section of this report provides an analysis of the
reactionary to primary delay ratio over time for the three airline models.

5.2.2.1 Evaluation of the reactionary to primary delay ratio over time

Figure 20 shows the seasonal evolution of the reactionary to primary delay ration
for all three airline business models. The ratio is represented by the solid line.
Additionally the mean primary (dotted yellow line) and reactionary delay (dotted
purple line) of delayed departures is shown.

42

For hub-and-spoke operations, the ratio is

on average lower than for the other two
types

of

operation.

Two

peaks

are

observed in winter 2007 and 2008 which

is most likely due to adverse weather.
Starting in 2009, a big drop in primary and
even more in reactionary delay can be
observed

resulting

in

significant

decrease of the ratio.

Hub-and-spoke operations

For low-cost operations, the ratio is higher

than for hub-and-spoke operations. For
some months such as July 2008, the
amount of reactionary delay is higher than
the amount of primary delay and the ratio
is higher than one. It is interesting to note
that the highest ratio is observed in
summer 2009 when traffic levels were
considerably lower than in 2008 as a
Low cost operations

result of the economic crisis.

Point-to-point

operations,

show

the

highest ratio between winter 2007 and

winter 2008. With the exception of April,
point-to-point
significant

operations
improvement

show
since

a
the

beginning of 2009.
Low-cost operations have the highest
ADDD (26 minutes) and also the highest
share of reactionary delay (13 minutes).
On average, every minute of primary
delay generated more than one minute of
reactionary delay for this type of business
model.

43

Point-to-point operations
Ratio of reactionary to primary delays
-- Primary delay
-- Reactionary delay
Figure 20: Seasonal evolution of
reactionary delay ratio

The observations in Figure 20 are consistent with the findings in Figure 19 Low-cost
carriers show on average the highest level of departure delay (primary +
reactionary delay) and hence the highest ratio. The 51 percent accounting for
reactionary delay in Figure 19 equal a ratio slightly above one.
5.2.2.2 Ratio reactionary/primary delay within the week
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the within-week-variation of the reactionary to
primary delay ratio. The ratio is furthermore put into context with the number of
flights (Figure 21) and the average delay of delayed departures (Figure 22).
The ratios of hub-and-spoke and point-to-point operations show a similar pattern
with a clear peak on Fridays (5) and the lowest level on the weekends. Low-cost
operations, on the other hand show a slight drop on Wednesdays (3) and
Thursdays (4).

Figure 21: Reactionary/primary delay and flight movements within the

week
Observed traffic levels for all three types of operation stay fairly constant between
Monday and Friday and drop on the weekend, especially on Saturdays.

44

Figure 21 suggests that the ratio is not directly linked to the level of traffic. For
instance, point-to-point operations have the lowest mean number of flights but the
highest reactionary to primary delay ratio.

Figure 22: Reactionary/primary delay and average delay of delayed

departures within the week

The average delay of delayed departures (ADDD) in Figure 22 shows a similar

pattern for all three types of operations. An interesting difference is the behaviour
of the ADDD on weekends. Whereas for hub-and-spoke operations the ADDD
drops already on Saturdays, for both other types of operations the ADDD peaks on
Saturdays. This is even more remarkable considering the lower traffic levels on
weekends as shown in Figure 21.
5.2.2.3 Hourly distribution of reactionary to primary delay ratio
This section shows the evaluation of the reactionary to primary delay ratio by time
of the day. All weekdays (1-7) were included in the analysis. Similar to the
previous section, the ratio is then related to the number of flights and the average
delay of delayed departures.

45

Figure 23: Hourly distribution of reactionary delay ratio (local time)

The ratios of all three types of operation show a similar pattern throughout the day
of operations.
As most European airports have night flight restrictions and traffic demand is
limited during night-time, only a limited number of flights are operated during night
time. While the ratio is very high during the night, the number of flights is very low
and the results should therefore be viewed with a not of caution. The ratio is to
some extent artificially high because delayed departures consist mainly of
propagated delay minutes which accumulated throughout the day and which
therefore strongly impact the calculation of the ratio of the few flights still
operating.
Airlines usually schedule their first flight of the day in the early morning. All three
types of operations show a traffic peak in the morning at around 7:00h and a
second peak in the afternoon at around 16:00h. The delay ratio increases
continuously after each traffic peak and shows only a decrease in the early
afternoon when traffic levels are reduced.

46

Figure 24: reactionary/ primary in relation to departure delay by hour

The ADDD is quite similar is also similar for all three types of operation. The low
traffic volume with even fewer delayed flights, results in the strikingly high ADDD
over night.
In the early morning the lowest level of ADDD is observed. The ADDD then rises
until midday, stays constant until 19:00h and rises again between 19:00h and
23:00h.
Especially in the hub-and-spoke operations, it can be seen that in the morning the
ADDD rises only until 09:00h and then stays quite constant, meanwhile the ratio
climbs continuously until noon. This suggests that from 9:00h onwards the
reactionary part of the departure delay increases steadily until noon when the ratio
equals almost one.
Between noon and 16:00h the ratio of stagnates in low-cost operations and drops
in the other two operations. After that the same effect can be observed again
between 17:00h and 19:00h.
In the afternoon this effect is even more significant than in the morning.

47

The relation, between the ADDD and the mean reactionary delay of delayed
departure, is shown in Figure 25. Clearly the gradient is below one, so that the
mean reactionary delay does not increase as much as the mean departure delay.
The trend can be caused by two factors: firstly not all primary delays propagate.
Secondly, the impact of reactionary delays is lower than the impact of all primary
delays together. This was already observed in Figure 5 and Figure 19 where the
share of reactionary delay accounted for some 40 percent of all reported delay.
However, an expected increase in form of an exponential distribution with a higher
ADDD cannot be observed.
Winter 2007-08 to summer 2009

mean reactionary delay of

delayed departures [min]

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ADDD [min]

Low-cost airlines

Hub-and-spoke airlines

point-to-point airlines

Figure 25: Average delay and reactionary delay per delayed departure

48

5.3

Ability to absorb reactionary delays in the block-to-block phase

In this section block phase performance of the airlines is analysed with the key
performance indicators detailed in 4.2.2.1: Delay Difference Indicator-Flight (DDIF) and Block Time Overshoot (BTO). It is important to point out that the DDI-F is
the mean absolute difference between the actual and the scheduled block time
and the BTO is the percentage of flights exceeding the scheduled block phase.
From a scheduling point of view, the predictability of operations months before the
actual day of operations has a major impact on the utilisation of available
resources (aircraft, crew, etc.). The lower the predictability of the necessary blockto-block time, the more time buffer is usually required to maintain a satisfactory
level of punctuality. The level of schedule padding is subject to airline policy and
depends on the targeted level of on-time performance and notable differences
between airlines can be observed.
When looking at scheduled block times or departure and arrival times, marketing
strategies and airport slot allocation needs to be considered.
Figure 26 shows the relation between the BTO (horizontal axis) and the DDI-F
(vertical axis) by airline and business model for the summer season of 2008.
Summer 08
8,0
6,0

DDI-F [min]

4,0
2,0
0,0
-2,0
-4,0
-6,0
-8,0
-10,0
0

20

40

60

80

100

BTO [%]
Low-cost airlines

Hub-and-spoke airlines

Point-to-point airlines

Figure 26: DDI-F and BTO by airline business model

49

A clear correlation between the two can be observed. With a higher mean DDI-F,
the number of flights exceeding the scheduled block time rises as well. In the
graph each dot represents one airline.
Operational performance in the block-to-block phase varies among the analysed
airlines, as the range of the mean DDI-F spans from minus eight to plus four
minutes. Overall, the mean DDI-F is slightly negative for all business models. Lowcost airlines absorb on average some five minutes per flight, hub-and-spoke
airlines three minutes and point-to-point airlines only two minutes. However, they
all plan generally more block time than actually required, indicating that a certain
level of buffer time is included in the scheduled block-to-block times.
Note, that the inclusion of buffer time in the block-to-block phase (DDI-F < 0) has
also disadvantages as it reduces aircraft and crew efficiency. Crews are assigned
to fly longer block times than they really do, which leads to additional costs due to
slack time in the crew scheduling.
Apart from this negative impact on airline efficiency, time buffers in scheduled
block-to-block times result in a certain level of aircraft to arrive ahead of their
scheduled times (early arrivals ). This in turn may have an impact on airport
operations as facilities and stands may not be readily available.
On average, there are only a few airlines which actually generate delay as a result
of insufficient scheduled block-to-block times.
Within the three operations, low-cost operators have with around minus five
minutes the lowest DDI-F. Only one of the observed low-cost airlines has a
positive mean DDI-F, during one season its DDI-F jumps up to even eight minutes.
On average, between 70 percent and 85 percent of this specific airlines flights
exceed the scheduled block time (see also green dot in upper right corner of
Figure 26). All other airlines with low-cost operations plan one to even ten minutes
more than they actually need, thus, having a scheduled block time ten minutes
longer than the actual block time. Most these airlines see 20 to 30 percent of
flights exceeding the scheduled block time.

50

As can be seen in Figure 26, hub-and-spoke operators (red dots) have generally a
slightly negative DDI-F of around minus three minutes and a BTO between 30 and
40 percent. However the picture is contrasted among hub-and-spoke operators.
While one hub-and-spoke carrier shows for example a comparatively low DDI-F of
around minus 7,5 minutes and a BTO of only 17 percent (see red dot in the bottom
left corner of Figure 26) another carrier exceeded the scheduled block time by 3
minutes on average and up to 75 percent of the flights exceeded the scheduled
block time.
Because of the low DDI-F, the first hub-and-spoke carrier is able to recover at
least one third of its flights which departed with a departure delay during the blockto-block phase. However, this also implies that a comparatively high number of
aircraft arrive even before their scheduled arrival time, in this case, between 55
and 70 percent.
The huband-spoke carrier (with the positive DDI-F) generates on average already
delay during the block-to-block phase. Consequently the share of delayed flights
increased by eight percent in the block-to-block phase. During the summer season
2008, 76 percent of arrivals were delayed with a mean arrival delay of 35 minutes.
Logically this leads to an increased probability of reactionary delays.
The impact of the DDI-F in terms of number of delayed flights is visualized in
Figure 27. It illustrates, that carrier with no or positive DDI-F are likely to increase
the number of delayed flights on arrival, or even double them, during the first block
phase.
Flights of airlines absorbing at least two minutes during the first block phase are
able to reduce the number of delayed flights.

51

Summer 2008
Nr of delayed arrivals / Nr of delayed
departures on first leg

3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
-10

-8

-6

-4
-2
0
DDI-F on first leg [min]

Low-cost airlines

Hub-and-spoke airlines

Point-to-point airlines

Figure 27: Impact of DDI-F on percentage of delayed arrivals

The following section evaluates the relation between inbound delays upon arrival
and reactionary delays on the subsequent flight leg. The inbound delay is the
observed delay when the aircraft arrives at its destination airport. Depending on
the performance during the block-to-block phase, the inbound delay can be larger,
smaller or equal to the departure delay observed at the origin airport. It should be
noted that inbound delays are only calculated for flights with a subsequent
departure. Consequently the delay upon arrival on the last flight leg is not
considered in the calculation of the average inbound delay which leads to a lower
average delay than is observed for the average delay per delayed arrival (which
includes the last flight leg)
Figure 28 illustrates the relation between the average delay of delayed inbounds
(ADDI) and the mean reactionary delay on subsequent flight legs. The horizontal
axis represents the ADDI and the size of the bubble represents the percentage of
delayed inbound flights. The vertical axis shows the mean reactionary delay on the
subsequent flight leg.

52

Summer 2008

mean reacationary delay of

delayed departures [min]

50
67

40

30

67

20

48
42

74
49

76
37

10

77
32

47

52
63

0
0,0

10,0

65

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

Average delay of delayed inbounds [min]

Hub-and-spoke airlines

Point-to-point airlines

Low-cost airlines

Figure 28: Inbound delays in relation to mean reactionary delay

As an example, the point-to-point airline represented by the big blue bubble in the
upper right part of the chart area is explained. This airline has a mean ADDI of 38
minutes and 74 percent of the aircraft are delayed when arriving at the gate. The
mean reactionary delay on the subsequent flight leg is around 27 minutes.
A somehow logical and linear relation can be observed in Figure 28: The longer
the mean inbound delay - the longer the mean reactionary delay upon departure.
Note that this is true irrespective of the percentage of delayed flights, as bigger
bubbles can be found on both ends of the graph.
Overall, low-cost operators have higher mean reactionary delays. They also differ
more from another, so that a clear pattern is not visible. The high level of variation
is to some extent due to the categorisation of the low-cost airlines (see 3.4.2).
Some of the low-cost carriers operate more like a hub-and-spoke operation and
others more like point-to-point operations. This needs to be kept in mind when
looking at the low-cost operations.
Although the level of inbound delay has clearly an impact on delay propagation
there is still a possibility to absorb parts of the experienced delay during the
ground phase which is analysed next.

53

5.4

Ability to absorb reactionary delays in the turn-around phase

This section evaluates the ability to absorb delays in the turn-around (ground)
phase. The KPIs are described in section 4.2.2.2. The turn around phase in this
study is defined as the time between the IN-time (on-block) and the OUT-time (offblock).
As outlined in 4.2.2, delays can be absorbed in the block-to-block phase and in the
turn-round phase. Since many different players are involved in the turn-around
process, a good planning and a high level of predictability is essential for turnaround efficiency and good performance. Turn-around performance and the ability
to absorb delay during this phase plays therefore an important role in the analysis
of delay propagation.
5.4.1 Delay Difference Indicator-Ground and Ground Time Overshoot
The GTO (percentage of flights exceeding the scheduled ground time) and the
DDI-G (mean actual absolute minutes difference to scheduled ground phase)
describes the ground phase like the DDI-F and the BTO the block phase. Figure
29 shows the relation between the DDI-G and the GTO.
Summer 2008
12,0
10,0

DDI-G [min]

8,0
6,0
4,0
2,0
0,0
-2,0
-4,0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

GTO [%]
Low-cost airline

Hub-and-spoke airline

point-to-point airline

Figure 29: DDI-G and GTO by airline business model

54

100

For almost all airlines the same relation is observed: the higher the DDI-G, the
more flights stay longer on the ground than scheduled. For low cost operations
there were three clear outliers and the trend line for low-cost operators was
removed in order to avoid confusion. It is striking that irrespective of the type of
airline operations between 60 and 90 percent of all flights have a turn-around time
longer than actually scheduled.
Around 70 percent of the hub-and-spoke operations exceed the scheduled ground
time, leading to a mean DDI-G of almost plus five minutes. Point-to-point operators
have the smallest DDI-G of plus three to four minutes. Low-cost operations tend to
stay even longer and show a DDI-G of plus eight minutes.
5.4.2 Turnaround Delay Indicator and Turn-around Time Overshoot
Figure 30 depicts the turn-around delay indicator (TDI) and the turn-around time
overshoot (TTO) as described in section 4.2.2.2. It is important to recall that the
TDI sets all early arrivals to the scheduled arrival time in order to take out this bias.
Summer 2008
12,0
10,0

TDI [min]

8,0
6,0
4,0
2,0
0,0
-2,0
-4,0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

TTO [%]
Low-cost airline

Hub-and-spoke airline

point-to-point airline

Figure 30: TTO and TDI by airline business model

55

100

In comparison to Figure 29, Figure 30 has shifted to the left and a slightly
downwards. The slope is flatter. This reveals information on early-arrival practices
of airlines as well. Only between 10 and 50 percent of aircraft exceed the ground
time because of new primary delay, whereas almost twice as many flights
exceeded the scheduled turn around time because of a combination of an early
arrival time with a late departure.
Note that the three low-cost carriers with the considerably high DDI-G in Figure 29
align themselves in Figure 30 along the other low-cost carrier.
On average, low-costs operations show the shortest scheduled turn-around time.
Within the given sample they reach a mean scheduled ground time of 40 minutes.
Point-to-point operations are scheduled on average 4 minutes longer than low cost
operations and hub-and-spoke operations are scheduled on average 10 minutes
longer.
However, it is important to point out that the mean turn-around time depends also
on the mix of the aircraft fleet, which limits the ability to directly compare turnaround times. However, it is possible to conclude that the turn-around times of
low-cost operations are scheduled quite tightly.
Consequently it is not surprising to see in Figure 30 that on average low cost
operators exceeded their scheduled turn-around times more often that the other
types of operation. Up to 46 percent of the analysed low cost operations exceeded
their scheduled turn around phase and consequently generated delays. On
average, low cost carriers added four minutes of delay in the turn around phase in
summer 2008.
In comparison, hub-and-spoke operations added only around 1 minute during the
turn-around phase in summer 2008.
The picture is different for point-to-point operations. On average aircraft required
less turn-around time than originally scheduled. The mean TDI was around minus
one minute in summer 2008 and only 25 percent of flights exceeded the scheduled
turn-around time.

56

5.4.3 Schedule padding-Ground

The level of inbound delay and the turn-around performance determine the
reactionary delay on the subsequent flight leg.

As explained in 4.2.2.2, the

schedule paddingGround aims at capturing the reaction of aircraft operators to

delayed inbound flights. Different to the TDI, it only looks at flights that were
already delayed upon arrival. Figure 31 shows the average delay of delayed
inbounds (ADDI) on the horizontal axis, the schedule passing-ground on the
vertical axis and the mean reactionary delay on the subsequent flight leg is
Figure 31 shows clearly, how airlines react differently to an inbound delay and how
this affects the mean reactionary delay. The schedule padding-Ground ranges
from minus five to almost plus 9 minutes.
Hub-and-spoke operations are found predominantly right below the horizontal axis
which indicates that they were on average able to reduce the inbound delay by
one minute. Of the three different types of operations, hub-and-spoke operations
have with 17 minutes the shortest mean inbound delay in summer 2008.
Point-to-point operators were able to decrease the inbound delay by more than
two minutes on average. However from a slightly higher average inbound delay of
18 minutes.

57

Summer 2008
10
14

schedule padding-Ground [min]

25
15

39

13

20

14

10

17
2

-2

11

23

11

27

15

12
18

11

7 8

12

9
-4
12

25

15

-6
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Average delay of delayed inbounds [min]

Low-cost airlines Hub-and-spoke airlines point-to-point airlines

Figure 31: The relation between schedule padding-Ground and mean

reactionary delay per delayed departure
As the TDI already indicated, low-cost operators are not able to reduce inbound
delays. On the contrary, they even add more delay.
However, one low-cost carrier notably runs on a different strategy: The low-cost
carrier which showed the considerable positive DDI-F (see Figure 26) absorbs on
average almost five minutes during the turn-around phase. In summer 2008, this
low-cost airline had a mean DDI-F of plus 3,6 minutes, a DDI-G of 0,7 minutes,
and a sched.pad.-G of minus 4,5 minutes. It runs a completely different strategy
than the other low-cost airlines in the sample.
Also quite eye-catching in Figure 31 is the low-cost airline with an ADDI of 53
minutes (big green bubble on the right) and the corresponding mean reactionary
delay on subsequent flight legs of 39 minutes. This high average reactionary delay
is logical, considering the fact that two third of the flights arrived already delayed.

58

When looking closely at the values, it becomes apparent that the schedule
padding-Ground actually does not directly link the ADDI to the average reactionary
delay of delayed departures. The reason for this is that the schedule paddingGround does not indicate whether the scheduled turn around time would have
been sufficient in the first place.
5.4.4 Absorbed inbound delay
The last indicator described in 4.2.2.2 is the absorbed inbound delay. With the
delay codes reported by the airlines, the actually propagated reactionary delay can
be identified which enables to quantify the absorbed inbound delay.
Figure 32 shows the relation between the average delay per delayed inbound
(ADDI) on the horizontal axis, the absorbed inbound delay on the vertical axis and
the reactionary delay on the subsequent flight leg (size of the bubbles).
Summer 2008

absorbed inbound delay [min]

-1

25
14
15

-3
8

-5

-7
-9
-11

10

17

39

13
14
7 11
8 11
11 14

20
23

18

25
27

15

-13

12

-15
0

10

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average Delay of Delayed Inbound [min]

Low-cost airlines

Hub-and-spoke airlines

55

60

point-to-point airlines

Figure 32: Inbound, absorbed and reactionary delays

The correlation between the ADDI and the absorbed inbound delay is evident. The
more the bubbles are situated in the upper right corner of the chart the bigger is
the size of the bubbles. In other words, the longer the average inbound delay and

59

the shorter absorbed delay, the higher is the mean reactionary delay on the
subsequent flight leg.
Compared to Figure 31, in which point-to-point operations show the highest ability
to reduce inbound delay, Figure 32 shows that during the turn-around phase pointto-point operators absorb in reality only about as much as hub-and-spoke carriers.
This is consistent with the higher ratio of reactionary to primary delay of point-topoint operations (see chapter 5.2.2) and it leads to the conclusion that point-topoint operations do not suffer as much primary delay during the turn around phase
as hub-and-spoke operators. Therefore, the effect of reactionary delay is higher
which consequently increases the ratio.
Furthermore Figure 32 confirms that low-cost carriers have by far the highest
ADDI, but absorb the least inbound delay during the ground phase (maximum
seven minutes). This leads inevitably to higher mean reactionary delays on the
subsequent flight leg.
Allusively, the graph provides information about the turn-around performance in
terms of additional aircraft suffering primary delay. For most of the airlines the
mean reactionary delay of delayed departures is less than the difference between
the ADDI and the absorbed delay. This is due to the number of aircraft which were
not delayed on arrival but added delay during the turn-around phase. They impact
the average delay of delayed departures but not the average delay of delayed
inbounds.
As an example the airline, represented by the blue bubble on the bottom of Figure
32 is described: The airline has an ADDI of 29 minutes and was able to absorb the
inbound delay by 13 minutes on average. In theory this would result in a
reactionary delay of 16 minutes on the subsequent flight leg if the number of
delayed aircraft stayed the same. However, the mean reactionary delay of the
example airline shows only 12 minutes (instead of 16), which suggests that the
number of delayed aircraft on departure has increased in comparison to the
number of flights delayed upon arrival. More aircraft departing with only primary
delay obviously lower the mean reactionary delay of delayed departures.

60

The following section provided a more detailed illustration of the concept by using
the aforementioned low-cost airline which showed a somehow different behaviour
than the other low-cost airlines.
The low-cost carrier outlined already in section 5.4.3 showed the following
results for the analysed performance indicators:

DDI-F = +3,6 min

PDI = 67 %

DDI-G = 0,8 min

sched.pad.-G = -4,5 min.

In Figure 32 this airline is found as a green bubble with almost seven minutes
of absorbed inbound delay (and still 25 minutes of mean reactionary delay).
The difference between the ADDI and the absorbed inbound delay is 25
minutes and the schedule padding-Ground is almost equal to the absorbed
inbound delay. This indicates two things: First, the airline mostly does not add
new primary delay during the turn-around phase and secondly, more aircraft of
this airline depart early than of other airlines.
The second factor is supported by the near zero value of the DDI-G. Also the
comparison of its overall mean departure delay and its overall mean
reactionary delay reveals that 13 of the 15 minute departure delay (87 percent)
are due to reactionary delay. When looking only at delayed departures, 75
percent of the departure delay is due to reactionary delay. Both values are
especially in comparison to the other operators are quite high and confirm
that the airline does not add a lot of new delay during the turn-around phase.
The following section compares now this low cost airline to one of the more
typical low-cost carriers:

DDI-F = -5,7 min

PDI = 53 %

DDI-G = 9,5 min

sched.pad.-G = 7,0 min

used buffer time = -3,1 min.

The second low cost carrier absorbs nearly six minutes during the block phase.
Only 23 percent of the flights exceed the scheduled block-to-block time.

61

However, 53 percent of the aircraft arrive with a mean delay of 25 minutes per
delayed inbound. Of these 25 minutes only three minutes get absorbed during
the turn-around phase. As the mean reported reactionary delay of delayed
departures accounts only for 15 minutes, a 7-minute gap needs to be
explained. The gap is due to the addition of new primary delay during the turnaround phase. This is confirmed by the share of reactionary delay within the
total departure delay. 15 of the 26 minutes of departure delay per delayed
departure (56 percent) are caused by reactionary delay. Also the high
sched.pad.-G confirms that even delayed flights exceed the ground time on
average by seven minutes and therefore add further delay.
In comparison to the others low-cost operators, the observed pattern of the first
low cost carrier fits more the profile of a charter carrier.
When looking at a typical hub-and-spoke carrier the differences to low-cost
carriers become apparent:

DDI-F = -1,1 min

PDI = 59 %

DDI-G = 4,7 min

Sched.pad.-G = 0,2 min

Used buffer time = -8,1

Hub-and-spoke carriers typically use a slightly shorter block time than

scheduled (here minus one minute). Almost 60 percent of all flights arrive with
an average inbound delay of 21 minutes, of which about eight minutes can be
recovered during the turn-around phase. The subsequent mean reactionary
delay is 11 minutes, which only leaves a small gap of two minutes for new
primary delay. The schedule.padding.-Ground indicates that the ground time
after an inbound delay stays quite constant. Therefore the airline adds about as
much delay as it had absorbed from the previous delay. Consequently, only 11
of the 25 minutes of average delay of delayed departure (=44 percent) is
reactionary delay.

Finally, a typical point-to-point carrier is evaluated. In summer 2008 it had the

following characteristics:

62

DDI-F = -1,2 min

PDI = 48 %

DDI-G = 2,9 min

Sched.pad.-G = -3,0 min

Used buffer time = -8,9 min

Generally point-to-point carriers operate even closer to the scheduled block

time than hub-and-spoke airlines (here minus 1,2 minutes). 48 percent of the
flights arrive with a mean delay of 23 minutes. Almost nine minutes of these
are absorbed during the turn-around phase. This leads to the reported
reactionary delay of 14 minutes. However, the difference between the
absorbed inbound delay and the schedule.padding-G gives a hint that the
airline adds around six minutes of new primary delay after having absorbed
nearly nine minutes in the turn-around phase. 13,6 of the 26,5 minutes of the
mean delay per delayed departures (51 percent) are reactionary delays. This is
right in the middle between the other two described carriers with different
operations.
Across all hub-and-spoke carriers the mean reactionary delay of delayed
departure was 6,7 minutes in summer 2008. This is about half as much as
observed for low-cost operations (13,4 min).
Point-to-point operations were in-between with around 8,5 minutes. It is evident,
that low-cost airlines absorb less inbound delays than traditional scheduled
carriers. Point-to-point operations are somewhere between the hub-and-spoke and
the low-cost operations. They absorb almost as much as hub-and-spoke carriers,
but do not add as much primary delays during the turn-around phase.

63

5.5

Sequential analysis of reactionary delays

This section presents the results of the analysis of delay propagation on those
sequences for which reactionary delay was reported.
5.5.1 Key factors influencing sequences of reactionary delays
The key factors for the analysis of sequences of reactionary delay need to link
performance in the ground and in the block phase but it is necessary to
differentiate between primary and reactionary delays.

Inbound delay

Root delay

Absorbed delay

Primary delay

Reactionary delay

1
Root
delay

2
Inbound
delay

reactionary
delay

Figure 33: Sequential analysis of the propagation of reactionary delay

Sequences generally start with a (primary) root delay, which then propagates
along the subsequent flight legs. Figure 33 illustrates that parts of the original
primary delay can be absorbed along the sequence but new primary delay may be
added generating additional reactionary delay on the next flight leg.
The key factors within sequences are therefore:

Root delay;

Inbound delay;

Absorbed inbound delay (used buffer time);

Additional primary delay; and,

Reactionary delay.

5.5.2 Sequences in Europe

Firstly the frequency of sequences by time of day, delay length, and depth of the
root delay is described. The time of the day is divided into three parts: morning

64

from 6:00h to 13:59h, afternoon from 14:00h till 21:59h and night from 22:00h till
5:59h.
Figure 34 shows the distribution of the sequences by airline business model.
Nearly 35 percent of all sequences of low-cost operations had a root delay
between one and 15 minutes and occurred in the morning. The main share (
+20%) of these root delays propagated only on one further flight leg (bottom part
of first column of Figure 34).
Summer 2008

1 leg

2 legs

3 legs

>4 legs

40
35

sequences [%]

30
25
20
15
10
5

1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60
1-15
16-60
>60

root delay
Morning Afternoon
[min]
low-cost
Low-cost

Night

Morning Afternoon

Night

Hub and spoke

Hub-and-spoke

Morning Afternoon

Night

Point-to-point
Point-to-point

Figure 34: Distribution of sequences affected by reactionary delay

Irrespective of the airline business model, the time of the day and the length of the
delay, the majority of the root delays could be recoved within the first leg after the
root delay occurred. Those sequences (with one affected leg) accounted for 50 to
60 percent of all the analysed sequences.
Figure 34 also indicates that more sequences start in the morning than in the
afternoon or at night. Especially sequences with short root delays (up to 15
minutes) occur more often in the morning. In general, delays propagate longer
when the sequence started in the morning. Low-cost and point-to-point operations
have on average a higher depth than hub-and-spoke operations.

65

Sequences starting at night time account for about five percent of low-cost
operations, whereas they are barely seen among traditional scheduled flights.
In terms of occurrence, root delays larger than 60 minutes play only a minor role.
They only account for six to eight percent of all sequences.
However there is a difference between the occurrence and the impact on airlines.
Figure 35 illustrates that the impact of the sequences (in terms of reactionary
delay minutes) is distributed quite differently.
Sequences starting in the morning have the biggest impact in terms of reactionary
delay minutes. This corresponds to the high number of sequences in the morning,
which also propagate longer.
On the other hand it is important to notice that long sequences have a big impact,
despite little frequency and/or little root delay.
Summer 2008
1 leg

35

2 legs

3 legs

>4 legs

reactionary minutes [%]

30
25
20
15
10
5

Afternoon
low-cost
Low-cost

Night

Morning

Night

Hub and spoke

Hub-and-spoke

>60

1-15

Afternoon

16-60

>60

16-60

>60

Morning

1-15

1-15

16-60

>60

16-60

>60

Afternoon

1-15

1-15

16-60

>60

16-60

>60

1-15

1-15

16-60

>60

16-60

>60

Morning

1-15

1-15
root delay
[min]

16-60

Night

Point-to-point
Point-to-point

Figure 35: Impact of sequences affected by reactionary delay

Low-cost operations are especially affected by longer sequences with at least four
affected flight legs. The impact of those longer sequences accounts for , about half
of all reactionary delays on the sequences in the morning.

66

5.5.3 Sequences in detail

In the following section, sequences of reactionary delays are analysed in more
detail for the three different airline business models. It can be observed which
share of the inbound delay actually propagates, if and how much primary delay is
added during the turn-around phases and what happens during block-to-block
phase.
5.5.3.1 Sequences in hub-and-spoke operations
Figure 36 illustrates sequences of reactionary delays with four affected flight legs
following departure root delays between one and 15 minutes (first chart), 16-60
minutes (second chart), 61 to 120 minutes (third chart), and 121 to 180 minutes
(bottom chart) in Summer 2008 for hub-and-spoke operations.
The first column always indicates the mean root delay. The other columns
represent the mean inbound and departure delays of the four affected legs. The
reactionary delay (green part) is logically what would have been propagated, if
there was no additional primary delay. Therefore the difference between the
inbound and the reactionary delay, is what has been absorbed. The yellow part
indicates the absorbed inbound delay, which is replaced by a new primary delay.
Together with the orange part, they symbolise the total new primary departure
delay. The difference between the inbound delay and the total departure delay
visualizes what was previously called schedule padding-Ground, the general
reaction to an inbound delay. The DDI-F is the difference between the root
respectively previous departure delay and the inbound delay.
The green and yellow part together would have been the calculated propagated
delay. This explains why the ratio of the calculated propagated delay in Figure 18
is mostly higher. Despite of errors in reporting, propagated delay is only smaller
than the reported reactionary delay if there is more non-rotational reactionary
delay.
It is important to bear in mind, that the charts do not give information about the
impact respectively the frequency of these sequences. They only illustrate how, on
average, the root delay propagates along the sequence. Sequences of reactionary

67

delays can end because all root delay is absorbed or because the sequence of the
aircraft ends.
The first chart in Figure 36 shows

DEPARTURE root delays 1-15 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

minutes,

aircraft

add

around

mean departure delay

[min]

that after a short mean root delay of 9

7

minutes during the first block phase,

arriving with 16 minutes of inbound

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Dep

delay.

Arr

Dep

Root

During the first ground phase airlines

mean departure delay
[min]

more than ten minutes of primary

delay. As the propagation goes on
is

absorbed

during

25
20
15
10
5
0
Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep
4

sequence of reactionary delay

DEPARTURE root delays 61-120 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008
mean departure delay
[min]

90

primary delays, especially during the

first ground phase.
Sequences in the second graph of

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Dep

Figure 36 suffer a mean root delay of

Arr

Root

Dep

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep
4

sequence of reactionary delay

DEPARTURE root delays 121-180 minutes
in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

able to absorb any delay during the

160
140

mean departure
delay [min]

first two block phases. Also more

primary delays are added during the
first two ground phases.
It appears that airlines only start to

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Dep
Root

really reduce departure delay when

around

Arr

32 minutes. Again aircraft are not

Arr

Dep
1

Arr

Dep
2

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep
4

sequence of reactionary delay

Inbound delay
primary delay
absorbed inbound delay, newly added
reactionary delay
Root delay

40

minutes. The departure delay on the

last leg is still higher as the root
delay.

Dep
4

30

Root

is caused by the long additional

reaches

Arr

35

The increase of the reactionary delay

value

Dep

40

ground and block phase.

the

Arr

45

absorb only one minute, but add

delay

Dep

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

seem not to react to the delay as they

more

Arr

1
2
3
sequence of reactionary delay

Figure 36: Hub-and-spoke sequences

with different root delays

68

The mean root delay of the third graph equals 81 minutes. The difference to the
previous charts is obvious. Airlines start to absorb the delay right away, with fewer
minutes absorbed during the block phases and more during the ground phases.
They are able to mitigate the root delay despite additional primary delay (yellow
parts).
Sequences with root delays between 121 and 180 minutes show the actual
potential of hub-and-spoke operators to absorb delay. The mean departure delay
can be reduced from 144 to only 61 minutes. It seems that the higher the average
delay, the more are airlines able to avoid further primary delay, and the more they
are able to absorb existing delay.
Looking at all the various charts in Figure 36, is appears that reactionary delays
only increase until a certain level is reached.
Figure 37 evaluates the depth of sequences of hub and spoke carriers with a root
delay between 16 and 60 minutes in summer 2008. As illustrated in Figure 34 and
Figure 35), this group has the highest impact in terms of minutes of reactionary
delay.
When the delay propagates only for one leg, only a small amount is absorbed
during the block and the turn-around phase. The aircraft departs with 25 minutes
of delay, of which 20 minutes are propagated.
When root delay propagates for two legs, the root delay cannot be reduced during
the first block-phase. During the first turn-around phase, about seven minutes are
absorbed but twice as many minutes are added than on sequences with only one
flight leg.

69

During

the

second

turn-around

phase more than nine minutes are

reactionary delay of 29 minutes of

total departure delay.

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

35

mean departure
delay [min]

absorbed, leading to 22 minutes of

40
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

The third chart in Figure 37 shows,

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Root

that reactionary delays account for

sequence of reactionary delay

about 26 minutes on all three

affected legs. The new departure

absorbed during the turn around

phase.

35

mean departure
delay [min]

delay offsets the delay which is

40

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

The small differences between the

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Departure

mean root delays suggest that the

sequence of reactionary delay

not

necessarily linked to the initial root

slightly higher mean reactionary

delay from the first ground phase
onwards.

sequences

with

the
a

depth
root

25
20
15
10
5
0

Root

of

sequence of reactionary delay

delay
Inbound delay
primary delay
absorbed inbound delay, newly added
reactionary delay
Root delay

between 16 and 60 minutes in huband-spoke operations is strongly

correlated with the addition of new
primary delay.

35
30

Departure

link, longer sequences show a

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations in SUMMER 2008

Departure

delay. Although there is no obvious

mean departure
delay [min]

40

Consequently,

Departure

Arrival

is

Departure

sequence

Arrival
2

Arrival

Departure

of

Departure
1

Arrival

depth

Arrival

Root

Figure 37: Depths of sequences in huband-spoke operations

70

5.5.3.2 Sequences in low-cost operations

The first chart describes that even

DEPARTURE root delays 1-15 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008
40
35

mean departure delay

[min]

low-cost airlines with a mean DDI-F of

around minus five minutes add delay
during the block phase after short root
delays.

30
25
20
15
10
5

Root

delay propagation is predominantly

driven

by

long

root

delays

dep

arr

dep

arr

dep

arr

dep

However, Figure 38 shows that the

arr

departure

sequence of reactionary delay

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes
in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008

and
50

mean departure delay

[min]

additional primary delays. Low-cost

operators absorb almost no delay
during the turn-around phase, but up

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Root

dep

arr

dep

arr

dep

arr

arr

departure

which confirms the results in sections

dep

to 10 minutes during the block phase,

sequence of reactionary delay

5.3 and 5.4.

DEPARTURE root delays 61-120 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008

The mean schedule padding-Ground

positive,

indicating too optimistic ground time

reactionary

50
40
30
20
10

Root

following a root delay of less than 61

dep

arr

dep

dep

arr

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

Root

phase.

arr

arr
3

dep

0
dep

turn-around

DEPARTURE root delays 121-180 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008

160

dep

than two hours aircraft finally also

the

arr

sequences with root delays of more

in

dep

mean departure delay [min]

It is interesting to note that on

delay

sequence of reactionary delay

minutes.

absorb

arr

delay rises with every affected leg

dep

Therefore,

60

departure

scheduling.

70

arr

is

arr

airlines

80

departure

low-cost

mean departure delay

[min]

of

90

sequence of reactionary delay

inbound delay
primary delay
absorbed delay, newly added
reactionary delay
root delay

Figure 38: Low-cost sequences with

different root delays

71

As low-cost operations show a different pattern of delay propagation, Figure 39

illustrates again sequences with a root delay of 16 to 60 minutes and different
depths but this time for low-cost operations.
The first chart suggests that the delay

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008
45

propagation on only one subsequent

departure delay.
The same pattern is seen for all
different

depths

of

mean departure delay

[min]

leg is not due to a decrease in

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

reactionary

departure

arrival

departure

Root

sequences.

Low-cost

operators

sequence of reactionary delay

absorb more delay in block-time than

they on average add around eight

minutes of primary delay.
Longer sequences generally start

40

mean departure delay

[min]

in the turn-around phase, in which

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008
45

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

with a higher level of reactionary

departure

arrival

Root

departure

arrival

delay on the first affected flight leg.

departure
2

sequence of reactionary delay

The reactionary delay increases with

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in low-cost operations in SUMMER 2008
45

every affected leg because of the

every additional turn-around phase

and the inability to absorb inbound

mean departure
delay [min]

newly added primary delay during

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

delay.

departure

arr

Root

78

percent

of

the

analysed

dep
1

arr

dep

arr

dep
3

sequence of reactionary delay

sequences with three affected legs

inbound delay
primary delay

and a root delay between 16 and 60

absorbed delay, newly added

reactionary delay

minutes end only when the actual

root delay

rotational sequence ends, usually at

the end of the operational day. For

Figure 39: Different depths of

longer root delays, less than 20

sequences in low-cost operations

percent of aircraft can recover within

the aircraft actual sequence.

72

5.5.3.3 Sequences in point-to-point operations

point-to-point

DEPARTURE root delays 1-15 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008
40

operations are illustrated in Figure 40.

Point-to-point operations show a similar
pattern within sequences of reactionary

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

delays as hub-and-spoke operations.

Root

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Departure

The first chart illustrates that the root

Arrival

0
Departure

in

Arrival

sequences

mean departure delay

[min]

Finally,

sequence of reactionary delay

delay rises significantly due to a positive

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008

DDI-F and new primary delay during the

45

the DDI-F of point-to-point operators

indicated that they generally absorb the

mean departure delay

[min]

40

first turn-around phase. In chapter 5.3

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Although on average point-to-point and

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

Departure
2

DEPARTURE root delays 61-120 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008
90
80

mean departure delay

[min]

every block phase.

sequence of reactionary delay

sequences with root delays of up to 60

minutes, aircraft increase the delay on

Arrival

Root

Departure

phase. This is reflected here. Within

Arrival

Departure

least delay minutes during the block-

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

point-to-point

operators manage to reduce the delay

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

20
0

after the fourth leg to 60 minutes, while

point-to-point operators absorb almost

Departure

Arrival

40

Departure

hub-and-spoke

60

Arrival

delay,

80

Departure

root

100

Arrival

minute

120

Departure

around phase. For instance, after a 144

140

Arrival

many minutes during a single turn-

DEPARTURE root delays 61-120 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008

Departure

operations are not able to absorb as

160

Arrival

37),

Root
Departure

(Figure

sequence of reactionary delay

mean departure delay

[min]

around

Root

Departure

Root
Departure

the same amount of minutes during turn

Arrival

hub-and-spoke operations absorb about

sequence of reactionary delay

Inbound delay
primary delay

20 minutes less.

absorbed from Inbound delay, newly added

However, during the turn-around phases

Root delay

reactionary delay

following shorter departure delays (see

Figure 40: Point-to-point sequences

first chart) they absorb more than the

with different root delays

73

hub-and-spoke operators. The yellow and orange parts of the columns suggest
that overall point-to-point operators do not add as much primary delay in the turnaround phase as hub-and-spoke operators.
Figure 41 evaluates the depth of
sequences

of

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008
40

point-to-point

operations

with

root

delay

between 16 and 60 minutes in

summer 2008.

mean departure delay

[min]

35
30
25
20
15
10

The average root delay increases

5
0

slightly from 30 to 32 minutes.

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Root

sequence of reactionary delay

When the delay propagates only on

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008

one further flight leg, as shown in

40
35

block phase and during the turnaround phase. After adding another

mean departure delay

[min]

the first chart of Figure 41, aircraft

actually absorb delay during the

30
25
20
15
10
5

four minutes of new primary delay,

0
Departure

Arrival

Root

the aircraft departs with 25 minutes

40

The chart in the middle of Figure 41

can be absorbed during the block

Departure
2

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

POINT-TO-POINT operations in Summer 2008

35

mean departure delay

[min]

two affected flight legs. No delay

Arrival

sequence of reactionary delay

of delay, on average.

shows a rotational sequence with

Departure
1

30
25
20
15
10
5

phases. During the first turn-around

phase,

the

absorbed

delay

0
Departure

Arrival

Departure

Root

is

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

Departure
3

sequence of reactionary delay

Inbound delay

similar to the newly added primary

primary delay

delay. During the second turn-

absorbed from Inbound delay, newly added

reactionary delay

around phase, more than eight

Root delay

minutes are absorbed and only four

minutes of new primary delay are
added, so that the aircraft leaves on

Figure 41: Depth of sequences in

point-to-point operations

the last affected leg with 26 minutes

of departure delay.

74

Sequences with three affected legs, depart after the first turn around phase with
an even higher delay than on arrival. During the second and third turn around
phases they absorb another seven and eight minutes of inbound delay and the
aircraft departs on the last flight leg with an average delay of 31 minutes.
The charts reveal that point-to-point operations react quite sensitive to primary
delay. The limited ability to absorb delay, in the turn around and block-to-block
phase, puts more weight on additional delay.
5.5.3.4 First reaction to short departure delays
After an initial root delay, the first opportunity for an airline to react is the following
block phase. In Figure 36 to Figure 41 it was observed that airlines, despite their
overall negative DDI-F, generally add further delay in the block phase following a
rather short departure delay.
Summer 2008

DDI-F after root delay

[min]

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
1-15 min

16-60 min

61-120 min 121-180 min

>180 min

length of root delay

Low-cost

Hub-and-spoke

Point-to-point

Figure 42: The first reaction after the root delay DDI-F
Figure 42 illustrates the first reaction of airlines irrespective of the number of
sequences in summer 2008 for each of the three airline business models.
It is striking, how the effort to absorb delay in the first block phase increases as the
duration of the initial root delay goes up. Consistent with the observed mean
values of the DDI-F, low-cost airlines are able to absorb more delay than hub-and-

75

spoke or point-to-point airlines. The overall mean values of the three operations
are only reached for root delays of more than 120 minutes.
5.5.3.5 Sequences in Summer 2008 and Winter 2008-09
Figure 20 in section 5.2.2 shows that the ratio of reactionary to primary delay of
hub-and-spoke operations decreased noticeably from winter 2008-09 to summer
2009. Along with the drop of the ratio, the mean delay per delayed departures
also decreased. While primary delays decreased only moderately from eleven to
nearly ten minutes, reactionary delays dropped from eight to below six minutes, on
average.
Figure 40 shows a typical, quite frequent sequence with a mean root delay of 32
minutes and three affected flight legs for hub-and-spoke operations. The
comparison of the winter 2008 season to the summer 2009 season confirms the

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations
in WINTER 2008-09

mean departure
delay [min]

mean departure
delay [min]

observation from Figure 20.

Dep
Root

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

1
2
sequence of reactionary delay

absorbed inbound delay, newly added

Dep

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes

in Hub-and-Spoke operations
in SUMMER 2009

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Dep

Root

primary delay

Root delay

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

1
2
sequence of reactionary delay
reactionary delay

Dep
3

Inbound delay

Figure 43: Sequences in hub-and-spoke operations

(Winter 2008-09 / Summer 2009)
Primary delays in the turn-around phase (yellow and orange) do not decrease
noticeably, but the level of reactionary delay drops because of two reasons: First,
aircraft absorb more and do not add new delay during the block-to-block phase.
Second, aircraft absorb about a minute more in the turn-around phase, especially
on the first affected flight leg. As a consequence, the mean departure delay is
lower.

76

5.5.3.6 Differences of sequences by time of the day

As an example of differences in sequences that started in the morning occurs
(between 6:00h and 13:59h local time) and in the afternoon (between 14:00 h and
21:59h local time), Due to the small number of flights, the night time was not
evaluated in more detail.
Figure 44 and Figure 45 illustrate sequences of hub-and-spoke operations for root
delays between 16 and 60 minutes (Figure 44) and 121 and 180 minutes (Figure
45) respectively.
In an earlier section of the report, is was suggested that airline priorities may
change during the day (see section 3.1.3.1). Airlines appear to be focusing on
punctuality in the morning while they focus on connectivity in the afternoon. The
following analysis confirms this statement.

40

Root

1
2
sequence of reactionary delay

absorbed delay, replaced with primary delay

Root

Departure

Departure

Departure

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

15
Departure

15
Arrival

20

Departure

20

Arrival

25

Departure

25

30

Arrival

30

35

Departure

mean departure
delay [min]

35
mean departure
delay [min]

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes in the

AFTERNOON
Hub-and-spoke operations in Summer 2008

Arrival

40

DEPARTURE root delays 16-60 minutes in the

MORNING
Hub-and-spoke operations in Summer 2008

sequence of reactionary delay

primary delay

Root delay

reactionary delay

Inbound delay

Figure 44: Sequences with root delays between 16-60 minutes during
the morning and afternoon (Hub-and-spoke operations)
Figure 44 demonstrates that the mean root delay is similar in the morning and in
the afternoon. Although there is a little less primary delay (yellow and orange)
during the turn-around phase in the afternoon, the mean departure delay is higher.
The difference results mainly from fewer absorbed delay minutes, especially in the
turn-around phase.
This indicates that the increasing ratio in the afternoon (see Figure 23) is not only
the result of ongoing delay propagation from root delays in the morning, but also
from a higher level of delay propagation on afternoon-sequences.

77

145
130

DEPARTURE root delays 121-180 minutes in the

AFTERNOON
Hub-and-spoke operations in Summer 2008

mean departure
delay [min]

mean departure
delay [min]

DEPARTURE root delays 121-180 minutes in the

MORNING
Hub-and-spoke operations in Summer 2008

115
100
85
70
55
40
Departure
Root

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

Departure

145
130
115
100
85
70
55
40
Departure

1
2
sequence of reactionary delay

absorbed delay, replaced with primary delay

Root

primary delay

Root delay

Arrival

Departure

Arrival

Departure

1
2
sequence of reactionary delay
reactionary delay

Inbound delay

Figure 45: Sequences with root delays between 121-180 minutes during
the morning and afternoon (Hub-and-spoke operations)
Figure 45 shows sequences with a root delay between 121 and 180 minutes and
two affected legs. Along the morning-sequence the aircraft absorbs more than 45
minutes in each turn-around phase (difference between inbound delay and
reactionary delay (green part) but adds 12 and 9 minutes of new primary delay
respectively. Finally the aircraft departs with 68 minutes delay.
In contrast to the propagation of delay in the morning, the aircraft absorbs on
average less than 20 minutes during the first turn-around phase in the afternoon.
With even less primary delay each in each turn-around phase and 45 minutes of
absorbed delay in the second turn-around phase, the aircraft finally leaves with still
more than 90 minutes of delay.
It becomes evident, that airlines do not absorb as much inbound delay in the
afternoon. The magnitude of the root delay is 40 percent higher in the afternoon
than in the morning (154/144=1,07 in the morning and 210/143=1,47 in the
afternoon).
The same operational difference was observed for point-to-point and low-cost
operations.

5.6

Magnitude and depth of sequences of reactionary delay

This section analyses the magnitude and the depth of sequences of reactionary
delay. As explained in section 4.3.4, the magnitude of the root delay is a simple
and useful indicator, but it is quite sensitive to the length of the root delay and the
depth of the sequence.

78

Figure 47 provides an overview of the mean magnitudes for root delays,

depending on the time of the day and length of the delay, in combination with the
mean depth of the sequence. Different from Figure 35, which shows the impact in
terms of percentage of all reactionary delay minutes, the magnitude is
independent of the frequency of a root delay. However, it is influenced by the
frequency of the various depths.
The magnitude shows a clear peak for root delays between one and 15 minutes.
In the morning it decreases with longer root delays, whereas in the afternoon it
stays quite constant for root delays longer than 16 minutes.
In the morning the magnitude is generally higher and the sequences are generally
longer rising to an average of 2,7 legs for low-cost operations. Depth and
magnitude of the sequences for root delays over 15 minutes are quite constant in
the afternoon.

8,00

4,0

7,00

6,00

Magnitude

5,00

4,00

2,0

3,00

2,00

1,0

1,00

0,00

0,0
1-15

16-60 61-120 121-180 >180

Morning

1-15

16-60

61-120 121-180 >180

Afternoon

1-15

16-60

61-120 121-180 >180

Night

Root delay of sequence

Low-cost magnitude
low-cost depth

Hub-and-spoke magnitude
hub-and-spoke depth

Point-to-point magnitude
point-to-point depth

Figure 46: Mean magnitude and depths of root delays

79

Number of affected legs

3,0

In Figure 35 it was already shown that the impact of all reactionary delay minutes
is lower in the afternoon due to the lower number of rotational frequencies. Figure
46 confirms that sequences are on average shorter in the afternoon, and therefore
have a lower impact in terms of magnitude.
However it should be noted that Figure 40 demonstrated that despite the lower
overall impact, the level of delay propagation is higher in the afternoon.
Due to the small number of flights, the magnitude for flights during night time is
artificially high and should be viewed with a note of caution.
It is interesting to note that the morning-sequences with a root delay between 61120 minutes show the highest mean depth and also the biggest difference in
comparison to the afternoon.
Hub-and-spoke operators show the lowest depth and magnitude. In terms of
ranking between the three business models, the magnitude reflects the ratio of
reactionary to primary delay, analysed in 5.2.2.
Low-cost operators show a surprisingly high magnitude for short root delays,
especially in the morning (5.8). This supports the previous observation that lowcost carriers do only have limited scope to absorb delay and are in fact more likely
to add new primary delay in the turn-around phase. In Figure 42 it was already
illustrated that low-cost operators even add delay during the first block phase of
such a short root delay.
In 5.5.3.1 it was suggested that, the higher the actual level of delay, the more
delay can be absorbed and the fewer newly added primary delay. This is also
reflected in the morning-magnitude in Figure 46. The magnitude drops although
root delay and depth increase. This confirms that the delay propagation is
significantly lower on flights with relatively long root delays.
It is apparent that the magnitude works well as an indicator, when including the
depth of a sequence.

80

5.7

Reactionary delays at European airports

After the analysis of delay propagation by airline type, this section focuses on the
delay propagation at European airports.
5.7.1 Reactionary to primary delay ratio at selected airports
Figure 47 shows the reactionary to primary delay ratio for six major European
airports. All other airports are grouped within others. It should be noted that the
analysis is still based on the validated data sample used for the analysis in the
previous chapter of the report. Due to airline data confidentiality reasons, airports
are dis-identified, as most of the airports have only one major carrier serving the
airport.
Summer 2008
primary delay of delayed
departures

30

25
25

20

20
15

15

10
36%

50%

42%

44%
29%

45%
42%

44%

39%
34%
33%

25%

28%

45%

44%

42%

0
Summer 2009

50%

43%

Winter 2008-09

Summer 2008

10

Winter 2007-08

Average delay per delayed departure [min]

reactionary delay of delayed

departures

0
hub other hub other hub other
ops
ops
ops

% of all
departures

AP1

100
80
60
40
20
0

AP2

AP3

hub other
ops
AP4

hub other hub

ops
ops
AP5

other hub other

ops

AP6

other AP

on-time departures
45

19

43

55

52

51
19

14

17

14

38

28

45

delayed departures

Figure 47: Reactionary delays at European airports

While the top of Figure 47 relates to the distribution of delay on delayed flights, the
bottom part of the figure shows the traffic distribution and the actual share of traffic
for which a departure delay was reported (grey part).

81

The delay distribution enables a distinction between hub-and-spoke operations

(red columns) and other operations (blue columns) and between reactionary (solid
colour) and primary delay (diagonal lines).
The small chart on the right side of Figure 47 shows that the ratio between
reactionary and primary delays does not vary significantly over the four analysed
seasons. Only in the IATA summer season 2009 the average delay of delayed
departures (ADDD) and the ratio dropped which is most likely due to lower traffic
levels following the economic crisis.
The ADDD and the reactionary to primary delay ratio vary considerably among
airports. The six major hubs are sorted by the length of the mean reactionary delay
of the hub-operations. AP1 has with 8,4 minutes the highest mean reactionary
delay and AP 6 with 4,1 minutes the lowest level of reactionary delay of the
analysed airports.
With the exception of AP1 and AP2, the ADDD and the mean reactionary delay
(except for AP4) are lower for hub-and-spoke operations. The share of reactionary
delay for non-hub operations ranges between 34 and 50 percent and is
considerably higher than for hub-operations.
It should however be noted with the exception of other airports, that the share of
hub-and-spoke operations outweighs the share of other operations. Consequently,
and despite the lower ADDD, hub-and-spoke operations have a considerably
higher overall impact on the operations at the analysed airports.
5.7.2 Mean daily impact of an airport
The impact of selected airports on other airports and themselves is evaluated in
this section of the report.
Figure 48 shows the average daily number of directly served destinations within
the ECAC area and the average number affected directly or indirectly - by a root
delay originating at the analysed airport.
In absolute terms, Amsterdam-Schiphol (EHAM) affects directly or indirectly the
largest number of airports (47 airports). In total, EHAM offered direct services to
an average of 94 different destinations within the ECAC area.

82

It is striking that one of the biggest hubs in Europe London Heathrow (EGLL)
only affects 29 airports on average. However, it should be noted that the analysis
was restricted to airports within the ECAC area.

Mean number of
daily destinations

Summer 2008
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

47

41

39

38

34

29

23

19

EHAM EDDM EDDF LIRF LEMD EGLL EKCH LEBL

affected airports

mean nr of daily destinations

Figure 48: Number of daily affected airports by airport

Figure 48 observes merely the number of affected airports, but it does not provide
an indication of the frequency or the impact in terms of delay minutes.
Figure 49 illustrates how the average daily impact of a root delay originating at the
analysed airport is determined in the next sections of the report.
The first airport is affected by all

10

the

minimum

of

either

the

Root 1. affected
airport
AP

reported reactionary delay at

departure airport of the inbound

3. affected
AP

Primary delay
Absorbed delay, replaced by new
Rest of reactionary delay
Reactionary delay from root
Inbound delay
Root delay

flight, the inbound arrival delay

or the reported reactionary delay
on the subsequent outbound
flight leg. That way, newly added

2. affected
AP

Figure 49: Calculating the original

propagated delay minutes

delay during the turn-around

83

Departure

delay minutes is calculated as

Arrival

0
Departure

impact in terms of propagated

20

Arrival

third airport in the sequence, the

30

Departure

minutes. For the second and the

40

Arrival

delay

Departure

reactionary

departure delay
[min]

reported

50

phase is disregarded.
For example, the second airport in Figure 49 suffered an inbound arrival delay of
43 minutes but the total departure delay on the subsequent outbound flight leg
was 41 minutes of which only 35 minutes were carried over from the previous flight
leg. However, only 30 minutes were caused at the root airport. Therefore the
propagated delay due to the initial root delay is the minimum of 43, 35 and 30 in
this case 30 minutes.
In Figure 50 the average daily impact of selected European Hubs - on themselves
and on other airports - is shown. Secondary and other hubs not included in the list
of hub airports are grouped together as secondary airports. All other ECAC
airports were grouped as Other.

Figure 50: Daily impact of an airport by reactionary delay minutes

Figure 50 shows nicely that major hubs affect to a large extent their own
operations because a large number of aircraft return several times during the day
to their hub airports.

84

On average, almost 6 hours of the reactionary delay reported at Munich airport

(EDDM) originates from root delays at Munich airport. At Amsterdam airport
(EHAM) almost 4 hours of the reactionary delay reported at the airport is
generated by root delays originating at Amsterdam airport. Additionally Amsterdam
airport shows a notable impact on London Heathrow (EGLL) and London City
airport (EGLC).
It should be noted that these figures are for illustration only as they related only to
the validated sample used for the analysis and not to all flights at the airport.
In Figure 22 differences of the average delay of delayed departures (ADDD) and
the ratio of reactionary to primary delays within the week were analysed. A similar
analysis was carried out to detect differences in the impact of reactionary delay on
airports, as shown in Figure 51.
Similar to the decrease of the ADDD and the reactionary to primary delay ratio on
Tuesdays (2), Wednesdays (3) and Saturdays (6), the impact of reactionary delays
originating from London Heathrow (EGLL) decreases on those days. However,
the decrease is mostly due to a lower impact of the airport on its own operations
on those days.

Figure 51: Daily impact of an airport within the week

85

5.7.3 Airports affecting themselves

In order to take a closer look at the impact an airport on its own operations, a new
set of sequences was created. The new data set includes only flights between the
analysed airport and another airport (i.e. every second leg is by definition the
analysed hub airport).
Figure 52 illustrates the average delay of delayed departures for flights returning to
their origin airport on the subsequent flight leg for several European airports. The
columns enable a distinction between the delay which is returned to the origin
airport (solid area) and the delay which could be absorbed during the rotation
(diagonal stripes).
Additionally, the blue columns represent the results for the IATA winter season
2007-08 and the green columns the IATA summer season 2008.
Winter 2007-08 / Summer 2008

Departure delay of sequences

returning to the airport [min]

30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0

50%

54%

56% 51%

39% 42% 38%

43%

33%
37%

30%

46% 45% 49%

34% 49% 40% 44%

20% 23%

EDDF

EDDM

EGKK

EGLL

EHAM

mean returning delay

EKCH

LEBL

LEMD

LIRF

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

Summer 2008

Winter 2007-08

0,0

LSZH

not returning departure delay

Figure 52: Returning departure delay minutes

The share of delay returned to the origin airport varies between 20 percent for
Zurich-Kloten (LSZH) to 56 percent for London-Gatwick (EGKK). In absolute
terms, the average minutes of delay returned to the origin airport range from three
minutes at Zurich Kloten (LSZH) to 12 minutes at Rome-Fiumicino (LIRF) airport.
For Frankfurt (EDDF), London Heathrow (EGLL) and Copenhagen (EKCH) a
notable difference between summer and winter season can be observed.

86

5.7.4 Example of bad weather in Frankfurt

The following example illustrates quite impressively how airports affect themselves
and to what extent delay originating from the analysed airport is returned on the
subsequent flight leg. On the 8th of December 2008, Frankfurt Airport (EDDF) was
affected by adverse weather.
Figure 53 shows clearly that the main impact originates from root delays
attributable to Frankfurt airport (EDDF). The impact on its own operations was
more than 15 times higher than on an average day in the winter season 2008.

Figure 53: Impact of major airports on 8.12.2008

Figure 54 shows the propagation of root delays between 16 and 60 minutes along
the rotational sequences on the 8th of December 2008.
Sequences on which the delay propagated on four successive flight legs, the
observed root delay was 39 minutes in Frankfurt. When the aircraft returned to

87

Frankfurt, the inbound arrival delay was similar to the observed delay when the
flight departed from Frankfurt. Although the aircraft was able to absorb nearly 19
minutes during the turn-around phase, it suffered another long primary delay of
about 64 minutes (yellow and orange part). On the third leg the aircraft was able to
absorb around four minutes, coming back with then 79 minutes of inbound arrival
delay. However, after adding another 33 minutes in Frankfurt, the total departure
delay increased to 98 minutes.
DEPARTURE root delays 16-61 minutes at EDDF
Hub-and-spoke operations 08.12.2008

mean departure delay

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FRA

arr

dep

Root

arr

dep

arr

FRA

dep

arr

dep
FRA

sequence of reactionary delay

DEPARTURE root delays 16-61 minutes at EDDF
Hub-and-spoke operations 08.12.2008

mean departure delay

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FRA
Root

arr

dep
1

arr

dep
FRA

arr

dep

arr

dep

arr

FRA

dep
5

arr

dep
FRA

sequence of reactionary delay

Root delay

reactionary delay

absorbed inbound delay

primary delay

inbound delay

Figure 54: Sequences from EDDF on 8.12.2008

The bottom chart of Figure 54 shows a similar sequence with two additional flight
legs. The sequence started with a lower average root delay of 21 minutes at
Frankfurt. Every time the aircraft returned to Frankfurt, the impact of each turnaround phase became more evident. Each time at Frankfurt the additional

88

departure delay increased the total delay of the sequence by 60 respectively 40

minutes. Finally, the aircraft was able to recover even 90 minutes on the sixth leg,
before the sequence of reactionary delay ended.

89

CONCLUSION

Throughout this analysis various KPIs were introduced to observe and measure
delay propagation. Indicators aimed at measuring airline performance during the
block-to-block and turn-around phase illustrated differences in airline strategies
and formed the basis for the more detailed analysis of the delay propagation along
the individual flight legs.
The ratio of reactionary to primary delays measures the sensitivity to reactionary
delays. For the sample of selected airlines its mean value is slightly below one.
Thus, almost half of the departure delay is due to reactionary delays.
The comparison between calculated and reported reactionary delays revealed that
calculated reactionary delays appear higher than the reported ones because they
do not take additional primary delay during the ground phase into account.
Over the observed four seasons, on average 50 percent (12 minutes) of delays in
low-cost operations are reactionary delays. Hub-and-spoke operators have by far
the lowest ratio as reactionary delays account for early 40 percent of all delays (7
minutes). Point-to-point operations lie in between the other two with around 45
percent of reactionary delay (9 minutes).
KPIs evaluating the turn-around and the block-to-block performance demonstrated
the following:
The BTO shows a strong and linear correlation to the DDI-F. The larger the share
of aircraft which exceed the scheduled block-to-block time, the less delay can be
absorbed in the block-to-block phase. On average, irrespective of the business
model, the DDI-F is negative. Therefore, buffer time is included in the scheduled
block-to-block phase of all types of operation. However, with an average DDI-F of
about minus five minutes, low-cost operators are best positioned to absorb delays
in the block-to-block phase.
Hub-and-spoke operators showed an average DDI-F of three minutes and pointto-point operators a DDI-F of two minutes.

90

The correlation of the GTO to the DDI-G looks similar to that of the BTO and DDIF. Depending on the airline business model, between 60 and 90 percent of all
analysed flights exceed the scheduled turn-around time. However, only half as
many flights exceed their scheduled turn-around times when additional minutes
due the aircraft arriving ahead of its scheduled arrival time are removed.
Finally, the average absorbed inbound arrival delay provided an understanding of
the level of delay that can be absorbed during the turn-around phase. Here, lowcost airlines appeared to have only a limited ability to absorb delay in the turnaround phase. Instead, they even added the highest level of new primary delays.
Overall,

hub-and-spoke

and

point-to-point

carriers

are

able

to

absorb

approximately the same amount of delay during the turn-around phase, but huband-spoke carriers added more new primary delays than point-to-point carriers.
Thus, the ratio of reactionary to primary delay is lower for hub-and-spoke carriers.
Irrespective of the airline business model, the time of the day and the length of the
delay, the majority of the root delays can be recovered within the first leg after the
root delay occurred. Those sequences (with one affected leg) accounted for 50 to
60 percent of all the analysed sequences.
While of the share of sequences with a root delay between one and 15 minutes
accounts for the majority of observed sequences, the impact in terms of
reactionary delay minutes is the highest for root delays between 16 and 60
minutes. As can be expected, sequences starting in the morning have the most
sever impact on reactionary delays and account for about 60-65 percent of all
reactionary delay.
Depending on the airline business strategy notable differences in strategies to
mitigate reactionary delay were observed.
Hub-and-spoke operations show a limited reduction of reactionary delay for short
root delays between 1 and 15 minutes. In fact, sequences with a short root delay
are likely to add new primary delay on subsequent flight legs which further
increases the overall level of reactionary delay. The reaction on longer root delays
(>120 min.) is very different. Aircraft are able to absorb a significant amount of
delay in each turn-around phase and manage to avoid additional primary delays

91

which results in a considerable reduction of the overall reactionary delay on each

of the subsequent flight legs.
Low-cost carriers are generally able to absorb more delay in the block-to-block
phase and only a limited amount of delay in the turn-around phase in comparison
to the other operations.. This makes them very sensitive to primary delays, so that
reactionary delays tend to increase throughout the reactionary delay sequence.
Thus, only a small share of sequences with reactionary delays is able to recover
within a rotational sequence of the aircraft.
Although point-to-point operators show a similar mean value for the absorbed
inbound delay as hub-and-spoke operators, they propagate a higher share of long
inbound delays and are therefore, more sensitive to primary delays. This is also
reflected by a higher reactionary to primary delay ratio. Apart from that the
observed reactionary delay sequences show a high level of similarity to the
sequences observed for hub-and-spoke operations.
For all business models, two main points were observed from the analysis of
reactionary delay sequences.
First, all airlines irrespective of their mean negative DDI-F, add further delay during
the block-to-block phase, following short root delays. The mean DDI-F value of all
three types of operation is only observed for root delays longer than 120 minutes.
Second, the longer the initial root delay, the stronger is the reaction to mitigate the
propagation of the delay and the less additional new primary delay is accumulated
on the subsequent flight legs.
The analysis of the mean depth and magnitude of root delays demonstrates that
especially during the morning, the magnitude decreases although depth and the
root delay increase (until root delays up to 120 minutes). This reflects what has
been stated above: Within sequences of smaller root delays, a higher level of
propagation and, therefore, an increase of reactionary delay is observed. Hence,
following longer (root) delays, aircraft absorb more and suffer less primary delays,
decreasing the reactionary delay of subsequent legs as well as the magnitude.

92

The comparison between sequences of reactionary delays in the morning and in

the afternoon reveals that aircraft absorb less delay during the turn-around phase
in the afternoon than they absorb in the morning while the level of newly added
primary delay stays relatively constant. However, the magnitude is lower in the
afternoon, because the mean depth of sequences is significantly lower in the
afternoon.
The longest observed mean depth of sequences is observed for root delays
between 61 and 120 minutes which occur in the morning.
Finally, it should be noted that the level of delay propagation is higher in the
afternoon. The magnitude of sequences following short delays is higher than
following long delays, but the highest impact have sequences following morningroot delays of 60-120 minutes.
The analysis of major European airports demonstrates that propagation is stronger
in non-hub operations where reactionary delays account for up to 50 percent of
total reported delays. This is however not surprising considering the higher primary
to reactionary delay ratio of non-hub-and-spoke operations. The share of
reactionary delay on hub-and-spoke operations was generally lower at the
analysed hub airports and accounted for only up to 35 percent of all reported
delays. Therefore, primary delays at the hub airports have a large impact on the
subsequent legs of hub and spoke operations.
Root delays originating from major European hubs daily affect on average
between 30 and 50 other airports within the ECAC area. The largest impact of the
root delays originating from the respective airport is on the hub airport itself as
flights return usually several times during the day.
On average, between three and six hours of the reactionary delay reported at the
analysed hub airports originated from root delays experienced on previous flight
legs at the same airport.
On flights only operating between the analysed hub airport and another airport,
between 30 and 50 percent of the delay originating from the hub airport is returned
to the same airport on successive flight legs.

93

OUTLOOK

In this study, reporting issues and uncertainties represented the greatest challenge
while dealing with the data. EUROCONTROL and IATA are working on an
appropriate, adjusted framework for reporting delays.
A set of more specific but comprehensive delay codes needs to be developed in
order to separate delay causes more clearly from another. Many major airlines
already use subcategories within their internal delay code scheme. A general
guideline and/or instructions applicable to all airlines need to be developed.
Additionally, a very simple local quality check at the Operations Control Centre
would help to further improve the quality of the data. An automatic warning should
be generated if sum of individual delays reported for a flight exceeds the total
departure delay or when rotational reactionary delays is larger than the reported
inbound arrival delay.
All this would ensure the validity of results, reducing a possible bias from airline
coding policies.
For the analysis of delay propagation, the reporting of callsigns which cause nonrotational reactionary delays is of upmost importance. If airlines started to report
these callsigns, a whole new analysis addressing the actual network effect of
delay propagation could be worked out.
These callsigns would also enable the analysis of relations and impacts of delay
propagation within airline alliances regarding the magnitude of delay propagation
and consequently the costs caused by the respective alliance partners.
Whether the propagation of long delays is preferred over cancelling flights is
unknown at this point and factors influencing this decision probably vary from
airline to airline. Obviously, this decision has an overall impact on the propagation
of delays. Therefore, different cancellation strategies should be looked at and
compared. If original aircraft rotations were provided by an airline it could be
compared to the actual operated rotation. Then the impact of swapping and/or
cancelling flights within the fleet of an airline as well as the entire network can be
analysed.

94

As a follow on to this study, various IF-cases could be tracked and analysed with
the created sequences of reactionary delays.
For example,

the impact of late arrivals of trans-Atlantic flights,

the impact of EC regulation No. 261/2004 regarding denied-boarding

compensation,

changes in airport systems (i.e. CDM at Munich) or in the composition of

operating airlines ( eventually with different business models)

detailed peak analysis at major airports.

Results of analyses like these could generally increase predictability, which in

turn would result in the improved ability to forecast delays in more detail and to
adjust flight schedules to better account for predictable delays. The results
could also present the opportunity for airlines and airports to identify best
practice examples. Finally, the parameters in macroscopic network models
could be determined more precisely, enabling a more realistic reproduction of
the actual air traffic.

95

GLOSSARY
ADDD
Afternoon
ANS

ANSP
ATFM

ATFM delay
(CFMU)
ATFM Regulation

ATM

Bad weather

Block time
CDM
CET
CFMU
CODA
CRCO
DST
EATM
ECAC
E-CODA
EET
ETFMS
EU

EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL
Member States

Average Delay of Delayed Departures [min.]

In this study: from 14:00h to 21:59h local time.
Air Navigation Service. A generic term describing the totality of
services provided in order to ensure the safety, regularity and
efficiency of air navigation and the appropriate functioning of the air
navigation system.
Air Navigation Services Provider
Air Traffic Flow Management. ATFM is established to support ATC
in ensuring an optimum flow of traffic to, from, through or within
defined areas during times when demand exceeds, or is expected
to exceed, the available capacity of the ATC system, including
relevant aerodromes.
The duration between the last Take-Off time requested by the
aircraft operator and the Take-Off slot given by the CFMU.
When traffic demand is anticipated to exceed the declared capacity
in en-route control centres or at the departure/arrival airport, ATC
units may call for ATFM regulations.
Air Traffic Management. A system consisting of a ground part and
an air part, both of which are needed to ensure the safe and
efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operation. The
airborne part of ATM consists of the functional capability which
interacts with the ground part to attain the general objectives of
ATM. The ground part of ATM comprises the functions of Air Traffic
Services (ATS), Airspace Management (ASM) and Air Traffic Flow
Management (ATFM). Air traffic services are the primary
components of ATM.
For the purpose of this report, bad weather is defined as any
weather condition (e.g. strong wind, low visibility, snow) which
causes a significant drop in the available airport capacity.
The time between Off-block (OUT) at the departure airport and onblock (IN) at the destination airport.
Collaborative Decision Making
Central European Time
EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit
EUROCONTROL Central Office for Delay Analysis
EUROCONTROL Central Route Charges Office
Daylight Saving Time
European Air Traffic Management (EUROCONTROL)
European Civil Aviation Conference.
Enhanced Central Office for Delay Analysis (EUROCONTROL)
Eastern European Time
Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System
European Union [Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, United Kingdom]
The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. It
comprises Member States and the Agency.
Thirty-eight Member States (31.12.2008): Albania, Armenia, Austria,
Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

96

GMT
Ground phase
IATA
ICAO
IFR
KPI
Morning
MVT
Night
OCC
OOOI-times
PDD
PRC
Primary Delay
PRISME
PRU
Punctuality
Reactionary delay
Root delay
Slot (ATFM)
SGT
STA
STATFOR
STD
UTC

Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco,

Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Turkey, Ukraine and United
Kingdom.
Greenwich Mean Time
The time between on-block (IN) and off-block (OUT) in an aircraft
rotation.
International Air Transport Association (www.iata.org)
International Civil Aviation Organization
Instrument Flight Rules. Properly equipped aircraft are allowed to fly
under bad-weather conditions following instrument flight rules.
Key Performance Indicator
In this study: from 6:00h to 13:59h local time.
Aircraft Movement message
In this study: from 22:00h to 5:59h local time.
Operational Control Center
Actual OUT of the gate, OFF the runway, ON the runway, Into the
gate times
Percentage of Delayed Departures [%]
Performance Review Commission
A delay other than reactionary
Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting the
Management of EATM.
Performance Review Unit
On-time performance with respect to published departure and
arrival times
Delay caused by late arrival of the same or different aircraft
Primary delay causing a sequence of reactionary delays
A take-off time window assigned to an IFR flight for ATFM purposes
Scheduled ground time
Scheduled Time of Arrival
EUROCONTROL Statistics & Forecasts Service
Scheduled Time of Departure
Universal Time Coordinated

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad Beygi, S., Cohn, A., Guan, Y. and Belobaba, P. (2008): Analysis of the
potential for delay propagation in passenger airline networks. In Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 14, Pp. 221-236.
Bazargan, M. (2004): Airline operations and Scheduling. Burlington, USA, Ashgate
publishing company.
Beatty, R., Hsu, R., Berry, L. and Rome, J. (1998): Preliminary evaluation of flight
delay propagation through an airline schedule. In 2nd USA/Europe air traffic
management r&d seminar, Orlando, 1.-4.12.1998.
CODA (2009): Delays to Air Transport in Europe. DIGEST Annual 2008, Brussels,
Belgium, EUROCONTROL.
CODA homepage (EUROCONTROL): https:\\extranet.eurocontrol.int\http:\\prismeweb.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int\ecoda\portal. 23.October 2009.
Cook, A. (2007): European Air Traffic Management - Principles, Practice and
Research. Burlington, USA, Ashgate publishing company.
CRCO homepage (EUROCONTROL):
http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html.
23.October 2009.
Diana, T. (2009): Do market-concentrated airports propagate more delays than
less concentrated ones? A case study of selected U.S. airports. In Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 15, pp.280-286.
ECAC webpage: http://www.ecacceac.org/index.php?content=lstsmember\&idMenu=1\&idSMenu=10. 11.November
2009.
EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (2003): Flight Delay Propagation.
Synthesis of the Study. EEC Note No 18/03, Brussels, Belgium, EUROCONTROL
Gillen, D., Hansen, M. M. and Djafarian-Tehrani, R. (2000): Aviation Infrastructure
Performance and Airline Cost: A statistical Cost Estimation Approach. Wilfird
Laurier University and Institute of Transportation Studies, Institute of
Transportation Studies, National Center of Excellence in Aviation Operations
Research, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, USA, Elsevier Science
Ltd.
Guest, T. (2007): Air traffic delay in Europe. Trends in Air Traffic Vol. 2, Brussels,
Belgium, EUROCONTROL.
IATA (2001): IATA Airport Handling Manual. 21st Edition, Montreal, Canada.

98

Mayer, C. and Sinai, T. (2003): Why do airlines systematically schedule flights to

arrive late? The Wharton school, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Performance Review Commission (2008): Performance Review Report 2007.
Brussels, Belgium, EUROCONTROL.
Performance Review Commission (2009): Performance Review Report 2008.
Brussels, Belgium, EUROCONTROL.
Radnoti, George (2002): Profit strategies for air transportation. Aviation Week
Books, McGraw-Hill, New York.
University of Westminster, Performance Review Commission (2004): Evaluating
the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay. Brussels,
Belgium, EUROCONTROL
Wegner, A. and Marsh, D. (2007): A place to stand: Airports in the European Air
Network. Trends in Air Traffic Vol. 3, Brussels, Belgium, EUROCONTROL.
Wu, C. L. and Caves, R. (2003a): Flight schedule functionality control and
management: a stochastic approach. In Transportation Planning and Technology,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 313-330.
Wu, C. L. and Caves, R. (2003b): The punctuality performance of aircraft rotations
in a network of airports. In Transportation planning and technology, Vol. 26, No.5,
pp 417-436.

99

ANNEX 1 : IATA DELAY CODES

Standard IATA Delay Codes
(IATA Airport Handling Manual, 21st edition, Jan 2001)
Others
00-05 AIRLINE INTERNAL CODES
06 (OA) NO GATE/STAND AVAILABILITY DUE TO OWN AIRLINE ACTIVITY
09 (SG) SCHEDULED GROUND TIME LESS THAN DECLARED MINIMUM
GROUND TIME
Passenger and Baggage
11 (PD) LATE CHECK-IN, acceptance after deadline
12 (PL) LATE CHECK-IN, congestions in check-in area
13 (PE) CHECK-IN ERROR, passenger and baggage
14 (PO) OVERSALES, booking errors
15 (PH) BOARDING, discrepancies and paging, missing checked-in passenger
16 (PS) COMMERCIAL PUBLICITY/PASSENGER CONVENIENCE, VIP, press,
ground meals and missing personal
items
17 (PC) CATERING ORDER, late or incorrect order given to supplier
18 (PB) BAGGAGE PROCESSING, sorting etc.
Cargo and Mail
21 (CD) DOCUMENTATION, errors etc.
22 (CP) LATE POSITIONING
23 (CC) LATE ACCEPTANCE
24 (CI) INADEQUATE PACKING
25 (CO) OVERSALES, booking errors
26 (CU) LATE PREPARATION IN WAREHOUSE
27 (CE) DOCUMENTATION, PACKING etc (Mail Only)
28 (CL) LATE POSITIONING (Mail Only)
29 (CA) LATE ACCEPTANCE (Mail Only)
Aircraft and Ramp Handling
31 (GD) AIRCRAFT DOCUMENTATION LATE/INACCURATE, weight and
balance, general declaration, pax manifest,
etc.
32 (GL) LOADING/UNLOADING, bulky, special load, cabin load, lack of loading
staff
33 (GE) LOADING EQUIPMENT, lack of or breakdown, e.g. container pallet
loader, lack of staff
34 (GS) SERVICING EQUIPMENT, lack of or breakdown, lack of staff, e.g. steps
35 (GC) AIRCRAFT CLEANING
36 (GF) FUELLING/DEFUELLING, fuel supplier
37 (GB) CATERING, late delivery or loading
38 (GU) ULD, lack of or serviceability
39 (GT) TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT, lack of or breakdown, lack of staff, e.g.
pushback
Technical and Aircraft Equipment
41 (TD) AIRCRAFT DEFECTS.

100

42 (TM) SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE, late release.

43 (TN) NON-SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE, special checks and/or additional
works beyond normal maintenance
schedule.
44 (TS) SPARES AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, lack of or breakdown.
45 (TA) AOG SPARES, to be carried to another station.
46 (TC) AIRCRAFT CHANGE, for technical reasons.
47 (TL) STAND-BY AIRCRAFT, lack of planned stand-by aircraft for technical
reasons.
48 (TV) SCHEDULED CABIN CONFIGURATION/VERSION ADJUSTMENTS.
Damage to Aircraft & EDP/Automated Equipment Failure
51 (DF) DAMAGE DURING FLIGHT OPERATIONS, bird or lightning strike,
turbulence, heavy or overweight landing,
collision during taxiing
52 (DG) DAMAGE DURING GROUND OPERATIONS, collisions (other than
during taxiing), loading/off-loading damage,
contamination, towing, extreme weather conditions
55 (ED) DEPARTURE CONTROL
56 (EC) CARGO PREPARATION/DOCUMENTATION
57 (EF) FLIGHT PLANS
Flight Operations and Crewing
61 (FP) FLIGHT PLAN, late completion or change of, flight documentation
62 (FF) OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, fuel, load alteration
63 (FT) LATE CREW BOARDING OR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, other than
connection and standby (flight deck or
entire crew)
64 (FS) FLIGHT DECK CREW SHORTAGE, sickness, awaiting standby, flight
time limitations, crew meals, valid visa,
health documents, etc.
65 (FR) FLIGHT DECK CREW SPECIAL REQUEST, not within operational
requirements
66 (FL) LATE CABIN CREW BOARDING OR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES,
other than connection and standby
67 (FC) CABIN CREW SHORTAGE, sickness, awaiting standby, flight time
limitations, crew meals, valid visa, health
documents, etc.
68 (FA) CABIN CREW ERROR OR SPECIAL REQUEST, not within operational
requirements
69 (FB) CAPTAIN REQUEST FOR SECURITY CHECK, extraordinary
Weather
71 (WO) DEPARTURE STATION
72 (WT) DESTINATION STATION
73 (WR) EN ROUTE OR ALTERNATE
75 (WI) DE-ICING OF AIRCRAFT, removal of ice and/or snow, frost prevention
excluding unserviceability of equipment
76 (WS) REMOVAL OF SNOW, ICE, WATER AND SAND FROM AIRPORT
77 (WG) GROUND HANDLING IMPAIRED BY ADVERSE WEATHER
CONDITIONS
ATFM + AIRPORT + GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES

101

AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT RESTRICTIONS

81 (AT) ATFM due to ATC EN-ROUTE DEMAND/CAPACITY, standard
demand/capacity problems
82 (AX) ATFM due to ATC STAFF/EQUIPMENT EN-ROUTE, reduced capacity
caused by industrial action or staff
shortage, equipment failure, military exercise or extraordinary demand due to
capacity reduction in neighbouring
area
83 (AE) ATFM due to RESTRICTION AT DESTINATION AIRPORT, airport and/or
runway closed due to obstruction,
industrial action, staff shortage, political unrest, noise abatement, night curfew,
special flights
84 (AW) ATFM due to WEATHER AT DESTINATION
AIRPORT AND GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES
85 (AS) MANDATORY SECURITY
86 (AG) IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS, HEALTH
87 (AF) AIRPORT FACILITIES, parking stands, ramp congestion, lighting,
buildings, gate limitations, etc.
88 (AD) RESTRICTIONS AT AIRPORT OF DESTINATION, airport and/or runway
closed due to obstruction, industrial
action, staff shortage, political unrest, noise abatement, night curfew, special
flights
89 (AM) RESTRICTIONS AT AIRPORT OF DEPARTURE WITH OR WITHOUT
ATFM RESTRICTIONS, including Air
Traffic Services, start-up and pushback, airport and/or runway closed due to
obstruction or weather6, industrial
action, staff shortage, political unrest, noise abatement, night curfew, special
flights
Reactionary
91 (RL) LOAD CONNECTION, awaiting load from another flight
92 (RT) THROUGH CHECK-IN ERROR, passenger and baggage
93 (RA) AIRCRAFT ROTATION, late arrival of aircraft from another flight or
previous sector
94 (RS) CABIN CREW ROTATION, awaiting cabin crew from another flight
95 (RC) CREW ROTATION, awaiting crew from another flight (flight deck or entire
crew)
96 (RO) OPERATIONS CONTROL, re-routing, diversion, consolidation, aircraft
change for reasons other than technical
Miscellaneous
97 (MI) INDUSTRIAL ACTION WITH OWN AIRLINE
98 (MO) INDUSTRIAL ACTION OUTSIDE OWN AIRLINE, excluding ATS
99 (MX) OTHER REASON, not matching any code above

102

ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF CODA DATA

https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://prismeweb.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int/ecoda/coda/public/standard_page/ao_data_processing.html

Cy

ICAO 3-letter code of the company that flies the aircraft

CallSign

IACO 3-letter flightnumber prefix followed by the flight number (no blanks)

ComFltNbr

The commercial flightnumber (as given to airports for passenger info

displays)

AcReg

5 characters (no hyphen)

Dep ICAO

4-letter code of the departure station (the IATA 3-letter code can also be
accepted)

Dst ICAO

4-letter code of the destination station (the IATA 3-letter code can also be
accepted)

Std

Standard Time of Departure according to the schedules including the date

Sta

Standard Time of Arrival according to the schedules including the

date

Eet (FP)

Estimated Flight time in minutes according to the flight plan

Out

Actual Time of Departure from the gate including the date

Off

Actual Time of Take-off including the date

On

Actual Time of Landing including the date

In

Actual Time of Arrival at the gate including the date

Dl1

First delay cause in IATA 2 digit code

Time1

First delay cause duration in minutes

Dly2

Second delay cause in IATA 2 digit code

Time2

Second delay cause duration in minutes

Dly3

Third delay cause in IATA 2 digit code

Time3

Third delay cause duration in minutes

Dly4

Fourth delay cause in IATA 2 digit code

Time4

Fourth delay cause duration in minutes

Dly5

Fifth delay cause in IATA 2 digit code

Time5

Fifth delay cause duration in minutes

RD

from Flt If there is a reactionary delay, give the call sign of the flight
having directly caused the reactionary delay

STXO

Standard Outbound Taxi Time in minutes

STXI

Standard Inbound Taxi Time in minutes

ServType

Service Type (See IATA SSIM appendix C) (1 character)

FltType

Flight Type ("S" for Scheduled or "N" for Non-scheduled (Charter))

QC

Quality Control ("A" for ACARS, "M" for Manual or "C" for
Combination or both)

103

ANNEX 3: CONVERSION OF UTC TO LOCAL TIME

Winter

Summer

GMT = UTC

GMT = UTC + 1h

CET = UTC + 1h

CET = UTC + 2h

EET = UTC + 2h

EET = UTC + 3h

GMT
country
Ireland
United Kingdom
Portugal
Canary Islands,
Spain
Faroe Islands,
Denmark

CET
ICAOCode
EI
EG
LP

country
Albania
Austria
Belgium
BosniaGE, GC Herzegovina
EKFO

Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Kosovo,
Montenegro,
Serbia
Luxemburg
Macedonia
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland

104

EET
ICAOCode
LA
LO
EB

country
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Estonia

ICAOCode
LB
LC
EE

LQ

Finland

EF

LD
LK
EK
LF
ED
LH
LI

Greece
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova
Romania
Turkey

LG
EV
EY
LU
LR
LT

LY
EL
LW
LM
LN
EH
EN
EP
LZ
LJ
LE
ES
LS

ANNEX 4: LOW-COST CARRIER DEFINITION

(EUROCONTROL Glossary)
Airline operator meeting most of the following characteristics:
- Marketing emphasis predominantly on price
- Ticketless travel: low-far airlines operate largely ticketless operations, and
their flights cannot be included on a traditional IATA-form international
ticket.
- Online ticket sales
- NO international offices
- In-flight services charged separately
- Most do not ofer free meals and drinks on most flights. Snacks might be
available, but add additional cost;
- For most, no seat selection;
- No in-flight entertainment; no newspapers; no seat cushions; blankets;
etc.
- No frequent flyer program
- No airport lounges
- Use of less busy secondary city airports
- High dynamism and flexibility in repositioning network
- No interlining: absence of interlining or links with other airlines
- Baggage: strict interpretation of baggage allowances
- High load factor
- Rapid aircraft turnaround (minimum time on ground)
EUROCONTROL STATFOR publishes a summary of carriers it considers
satisfying the above criteria.

105

ANNEX 5: AIRCRAFT TYPES AND MEDIAN SEAT CAPACITY

ICAO aircraft type

median seat capacity

mean ground time

B190
JS32
E120
D328
SF34
E135
AT43
AT45
CRJ1
CRJ2
DH8C
E145
F50
SB20
AN26
AT72
CRJ7
E170
DH8D
RJ70
F70
RJ85
CRJ9
B462
RJ1H
F100
E190
B463
MD87
B735
B736
A318
A319
MD82
B733
B737
MD83
MD88
B734
MD81
A320
MD90
B738
B739
B752
A321
B762
A310
B763
A30B
A332
A343
A306
B772
MD11
A333
A346
B773
B744
B742

19
19
30
32
34
37
46
46
50
50
50
50
50
50
52
66
70
70
72
79
80
82
86
88
97
101.5
108
110
110
111
112
114
124
131
137
137
140
142
144
147
150
150
167
178
183
186
198
207
229
240
251
264
266.5
283
285
298
339
380
390
398

42
35
38
40
48
39
39
44
41
38
40
42
33
46
85
43
43
50
44
41
47
41
45
45
44
51
52
50
48
50
47
60
55
53
50
54
48
56
54
44
57
.
60
69
64
62
122
89
98
117
113
116
63
124
120
129
117
134
130
.

106

DECLARATION

I, Martina Jetzki, declare that I have developed and written the enclosed thesis
entitled The propagation of air transport delays in Europe entirely by myself and
have not used sources or means without declaration in the text. Any thoughts or
quotations which were inferred from these sources are clearly marked as such.
This thesis was not submitted in the same or in a substantially similar version, not
even partially, to any other authority to achieve an academic grading and was not
published elsewhere.

Brussels, 23.12.2009

107